Benchmark: trunk test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var float = 5.234567

Tests:

math.trunk
Math.trunc(float)
binary
~(float)
using parseINT
parseInt( float )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
math.trunk
binary
using parseINT

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 on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark test measures how different ways to truncate or round a floating-point number affect performance in modern web browsers. The test uses a specific value (`float = 5.234567`) and applies three different operations:

1. `Math.trunc(float)` (also known as truncation)
2. `~(float)` (bitwise NOT operator, used for rounding towards -∞)
3. `parseInt(float)` (converting the float to an integer)

**Options compared**

The test compares the performance of these three operations:

1. **Truncation (`Math.trunc(float)`)**: Truncates the decimal part and returns an integer.
2. **Bitwise NOT operator (`~(float)`)**: Uses bitwise operations to simulate rounding towards -∞ (i.e., away from zero). This approach is not as straightforward as truncation, but it's an interesting alternative.
3. **`parseInt(float)`**: Converts the float value to an integer using a specific implementation, which might be optimized for certain use cases.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Truncation (`Math.trunc(float)`)**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and well-supported by most browsers.
	* Cons: May not perform as well as other approaches on very large values.
2. **Bitwise NOT operator (`~(float)`)**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than truncation for certain use cases (e.g., when the input is negative).
	* Cons: Less intuitive and less widely supported, especially in older browsers.
3. **`parseInt(float)`**:
	* Pros: May be optimized for specific browser versions or architectures.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected results if not handled correctly.

**Library and special JS feature**

In the benchmark test, there is no explicit library used. However, some modern browsers may rely on libraries like WebGL or WebGPU for certain operations. There are no special JavaScript features (e.g., `async/await`, `generators`) explicitly mentioned in this test.

**Alternative approaches**

Other ways to round a float value include:

* Using the `Number.EPSILON` constant, which represents the smallest difference between two distinct positive numbers.
* Implementing a custom rounding algorithm using arithmetic operations and conditional statements.
* Utilizing specialized libraries or functions for rounding, such as `Math.round()` or `toFixed()`, although these might not be optimized for performance.

Keep in mind that this test is designed to measure the performance of different approaches within the context of modern web browsers. The results may vary depending on the specific browser, version, and hardware configuration being tested.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
math.trunk	3987625.8 Ops/sec
binary	12996209.0 Ops/sec
using parseINT	3524713.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

trunk test (version: 0)

measure parseInt againts

Comparing performance of: math.trunk vs binary vs using parseINT

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

math.trunk

binary

using parseINT

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):