Benchmark: math pow vs multiply -2222

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,2);
mult
var y = 54*54
Exponentiation
var y = 54 ** 54

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
mult
Exponentiation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, specifically comparing three different methods to calculate the square of a number: `Math.pow()`, multiplication (`*`), and exponentiation using the `**` operator.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is testing three approaches:

1. **`Math.pow()`**: This function takes two arguments, `base` and `exponent`. It raises `base` to the power of `exponent`.
2. **Multiplication (`*`)**: This operator performs element-wise multiplication.
3. **Exponentiation using `**` operator**: This operator performs exponentiation.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **`Math.pow()`**:
	* Pros: Portable, widely supported, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: May be slower than native exponentiation due to the need for additional function call overhead.
2. **Multiplication (`*`)**:
	* Pros: Native implementation, likely optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Limited support across different browsers or JavaScript environments.
3. **Exponentiation using `**` operator**: (Newest addition)
	* Pros: Native implementation, high performance, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Introduced in ECMAScript 2016, so may not be supported by older browsers.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* Performance-critical code: `**` operator might be a better choice due to its native implementation and high performance.
* Code readability and maintainability: `Math.pow()` is often preferred for its clarity and portability.
* Browser support: If you need to support older browsers, you may want to stick with `Math.pow()`.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `**` operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2016, so if you're targeting older browsers or environments, you might need to use `Math.pow()` instead.

No special JavaScript features (e.g., async/await, destructuring) are mentioned in the provided benchmark code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.192 Safari/537.36 OPR/74.0.3911.218

Browser/OS: Opera 74 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	2262902.8 Ops/sec
mult	435874464.0 Ops/sec
Exponentiation	436006464.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

math pow vs multiply -2222 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult vs Exponentiation

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

Exponentiation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):