Benchmark: Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication 2

Script Preparation code:

var n = 20;

Tests:

Math.pow
var x = Math.pow(n, n);
Exponentiation
var y = n ** n;
Multiplication
var y = n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow
Exponentiation
Multiplication

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of three different methods for calculating `n` raised to the power of itself: `Math.pow`, exponentiation (`**`), and multiplication.

**Options Compared**

* **Math.pow**: Uses the `pow` function from the JavaScript Math object.
* **Exponentiation**: Uses the `**` operator, which is a shorthand for "exponentiation".
* **Multiplication**: Uses repeated multiplication to calculate the result.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Math.pow**:
	* Pros: Fast and accurate, part of the JavaScript standard library.
	* Cons: May have limitations in certain browsers or versions.
2. **Exponentiation (`**`)**:
	* Pros: Fast, modern, and widely supported across most browsers and platforms.
	* Cons: May be slower than `Math.pow` for very large inputs due to its implementation.
3. **Multiplication**:
	* Pros: Slow but straightforward to implement.
	* Cons: Inefficient in terms of CPU cycles required.

In general, `Exponentiation (`**`) is the recommended approach due to its balance between speed and simplicity. However, if you need to support very old browsers or versions, using `Math.pow` might be necessary.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned, but we can infer that the tests use built-in JavaScript functions and operators.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the exponentiation operator (`**`) which is a relatively modern syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2016 (ES6). This allows for concise and expressive code. If your target audience includes older browsers or versions, you might want to use `Math.pow` instead.

**Other Alternatives**

* **Caching**: You could consider caching the results of previous tests to avoid recalculating them unnecessarily.
* **Profiling**: Use profiling tools like Chrome DevTools' Profiler or Node.js Inspector to analyze performance bottlenecks and optimize your benchmark further.
* **Different Iteration methods**: Depending on the size of `n`, you might want to experiment with different iteration methods, such as using a loop or recursion.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case, target audience, and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 28 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.0 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.pow	10025390.0 Ops/sec
Exponentiation	17986510.0 Ops/sec
Multiplication	1902767.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication

Created: 28 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow

Exponentiation

Multiplication

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 days ago):