Benchmark: Pow VS Multiply VS ** op

Script Preparation code:

var x = 568.6588987455875
var y = 59898

Tests:

x * x
x * x
Math.pow(x, 2)
Math.pow(x, 2)
x ** 2
x ** 2
y * y
y * y
Math.pow(y, 2)
Math.pow(y, 2)
y ** 2
y ** 2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
x * x
Math.pow(x, 2)
x ** 2
y * y
Math.pow(y, 2)
y ** 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for MeasureThat.net. The `Name` field specifies the name of the benchmark, which is "Pow VS Multiply VS ** op". This suggests that the benchmark is comparing the performance of three different mathematical operations: exponentiation (`**`), multiplication (`*`), and the built-in `Math.pow()` function.

The `Script Preparation Code` section contains JavaScript code that prepares the variables `x` and `y` for the benchmark. The exact values of `x` and `y` are not specified, but they appear to be numbers.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case is represented by a JSON object containing the following fields:

* `Benchmark Definition`: specifies the mathematical operation being tested
* `Test Name`: displays the name of the test case (e.g., "x * x")

The benchmark definition for each test case uses either exponentiation (`**`), multiplication (`*`) with built-in `Math.pow()` function, or built-in `Math.pow()` function directly. There are four test cases:

1. `x ** 2`: Exponentiation
2. `Math.pow(x, 2)`: Built-in `Math.pow()` function
3. `y * y`: Multiplication
4. `Math.pow(y, 2)`: Built-in `Math.pow()` function

**Libraries Used**

The benchmark definition uses the built-in `Math` object in JavaScript, which provides various mathematical functions and constants.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared in this benchmark are:

* Exponentiation (`**`)
* Multiplication (`*`) with the built-in `Math.pow()` function
* Built-in `Math.pow()` function

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Exponentiation (`**`)**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, can be faster for large exponents.
	* Cons: May not be as accurate or reliable as other methods due to potential rounding errors.
2. **Multiplication (`*`) with built-in `Math.pow()` function**:
	* Pros: Can provide a good balance between accuracy and performance.
	* Cons: Requires the use of an additional library function, which may introduce overhead.
3. **Built-in `Math.pow()` function**:
	* Pros: Accurate and reliable, optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.
	* Cons: May be slower than exponentiation or multiplication with built-in `Math.pow()` due to additional function call overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When designing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Garbage collection overhead
* Cache locality and memory access patterns
* Instruction-level optimization and hardware-specific features

In this case, the benchmark definition appears to focus on comparing the performance of different mathematical operations in a controlled environment. However, real-world scenarios may involve additional complexities that need to be considered.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark or modify this one for your needs, here are some alternative approaches to consider:

* Compare multiple optimization levels or compiler settings
* Test the performance of different mathematical libraries (e.g., NumJS, FastMath)
* Examine the impact of various hardware configurations or architectures on performance

By understanding the options being compared and their pros and cons, you can create a more accurate and informative benchmark that helps inform decisions about which approach to take in your own projects.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
x * x	4607936.0 Ops/sec
Math.pow(x, 2)	2844376.2 Ops/sec
x ** 2	8545139.0 Ops/sec
y * y	4839461.5 Ops/sec
Math.pow(y, 2)	2934075.2 Ops/sec
y ** 2	8612083.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Pow VS Multiply VS ** op (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: x * x vs Math.pow(x, 2) vs x ** 2 vs y * y vs Math.pow(y, 2) vs y ** 2

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

x * x

Math.pow(x, 2)

x ** 2

y * y

Math.pow(y, 2)

y ** 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):