Benchmark: Coordinate test 7

Script Preparation code:

var width = 480;
var halfWidth = width >> 1;
var invertedHalfWidth = 1 / halfWidth;

Tests:

Conditional comparison
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuadLeft = xPos < halfWidth ? 0 : 1;
Bitwise comparison
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var diff = xPos ^ halfWidth; diff |= diff >> 1; diff |= diff >> 2; diff |= diff >> 4; diff |= diff >> 8; diff |= diff >> 16; diff &= ~(diff >> 1) | 0x80000000; diff &= (xPos ^ 0x80000000) & (halfWidth ^ 0x7fffffff); var xQuad = !!diff;
Other test
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos ^ halfWidth && ( !(halfWidth ^ 0) || ( (xPos / halfWidth) | 0 ) );
Other test 2
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos == width ? 1 : ( ( xPos * invertedHalfWidth ) | 0 );
Other test 3
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos == width ? 1 : ~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth );
Other test 4
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = ~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth );
If test
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuadLeft = 0; if( xPos >= halfWidth ) xQuadLeft = 1;
If test 2
var xPos = Math.random() * width; if( xPos < halfWidth ) var xQuadLeft = 0; else var xQuadLeft = 1;
True/false
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuadLeft; if( xPos >= halfWidth ) xQuadLeft = true;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Conditional comparison
Bitwise comparison
Other test
Other test 2
Other test 3
Other test 4
If test
If test 2
True/false

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Conditional comparison	3507086.8 Ops/sec
Bitwise comparison	2846288.8 Ops/sec
Other test	2505396.5 Ops/sec
Other test 2	2926694.8 Ops/sec
Other test 3	2944743.5 Ops/sec
Other test 4	3631430.2 Ops/sec
If test	3675134.0 Ops/sec
If test 2	3644078.8 Ops/sec
True/false	3640248.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small code snippet designed to measure the performance of different JavaScript implementations or optimizations.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines several variables:

* `width`: an integer set to 480
* `halfWidth`: an integer calculated as half of `width` (240)
* `invertedHalfWidth`: an integer calculated as the reciprocal of `halfWidth` (-0.0041667)

**Test Cases**

There are six test cases, each with a different approach for determining whether a value is within or outside a certain range:

1. **Conditional comparison**: Uses a simple conditional statement (`xPos < halfWidth ? 0 : 1`) to determine the result.
2. **Bitwise comparison**: Uses bitwise operations (e.g., `diff ^ halfWidth`, `diff >> 1`, etc.) to determine the result.
3. **Other test 1-4**: Similar to conditional comparison, but with different variations in the code.

**Results**

The results show the performance of each test case across multiple browsers and devices, measured in executions per second (EPS). The highest EPS value indicates the fastest execution time.

**Comparison of Test Cases**

Based on the results:

* **Conditional comparison**: This approach is relatively fast but may have a higher overhead due to the conditional statement.
* **Bitwise comparison**: This approach appears to be the fastest, as it leverages bitwise operations that are often optimized by JavaScript engines. However, this may also introduce some complexity and potential errors if not implemented correctly.
* **Other test 1-4**: These variations seem to have lower EPS values than conditional comparison or bitwise comparison, suggesting they may have higher overhead or be less efficient.

**Conclusion**

The choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case. If you need a simple and easy-to-understand solution, conditional comparison might be a good choice. However, if performance is critical and you're willing to invest time in optimizing the code, bitwise comparison could provide better results.

Related benchmarks:

Coordinate test 7 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Conditional comparison vs Bitwise comparison vs Other test vs Other test 2 vs Other test 3 vs Other test 4 vs If test vs If test 2 vs True/false

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Conditional comparison

Bitwise comparison

Other test

Other test 2

Other test 3

Other test 4

If test

If test 2

True/false

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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