Benchmark: Math.log2 vs Math.abs vs Math.log

Tests:

Math.log2
for (let i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) { let a = Math.log2(12345); }
Math.abs
for (let i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) { let a = Math.abs(12345); }
Math.log
for (let i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) { let a = Math.log(12345); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.log2
Math.abs
Math.log

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents three individual test cases that compare the performance of different mathematical operations:

1. `Math.log2`
2. `Math.abs`
3. `Math.log`

Each test case uses a simple loop to execute the respective function (`100_000` iterations) with a fixed input value (`12345`). The goal is to determine which operation is faster.

**Options compared**

The three options are:

1. **Math.log2**: calculates the base-2 logarithm of a number
2. **Math.abs**: returns the absolute value of a number (i.e., its distance from zero, without considering direction)
3. **Math.log**: calculates the natural logarithm of a number

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Math.log2**: This method uses bitwise operations to calculate the logarithm, which can be more efficient than using the `Math.log` function.
	* Pros: often faster due to optimized implementation
	* Cons: may not work correctly for non-power-of-2 inputs
2. **Math.abs**: This method simply returns the absolute value of the input number without performing any arithmetic operations.
	* Pros: simple and easy to implement, works for all inputs
	* Cons: not optimized for performance, may be slower than `Math.log2` or `Math.log`
3. **Math.log**: This method uses the natural logarithm algorithm to calculate the result, which is generally considered a good balance between performance and accuracy.
	* Pros: accurate, widely supported, and well-tested
	* Cons: may not be as fast as optimized implementations like `Math.log2`

**Library and purpose**

There are no libraries used in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript environments might provide additional mathematical functions or optimizations that could affect the results.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the provided test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic `for` loop.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to add more test cases or explore other options, here are a few ideas:

* Compare performance with different mathematical libraries (e.g., `mathjs`, `numjs`) or frameworks (e.g., `TensorFlow.js`)
* Test optimization techniques, such as inlining or dead code elimination
* Explore the use of SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instructions for parallel processing

Keep in mind that benchmarking is an iterative process. As you refine your tests and analyze the results, you may discover opportunities to optimize your implementation further!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:127.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/127.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.log2	22355.1 Ops/sec
Math.abs	21502.2 Ops/sec
Math.log	15118.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.log2 vs Math.abs vs Math.log (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.log2 vs Math.abs vs Math.log

Created: 5 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.log2

Math.abs

Math.log

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):