Benchmark: Math.pow(x,0.25) vs Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))

Tests:

Math.pow(x,0.25)
Math.pow(1234, 0.25)
Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))
Math.sqrt(Math.sqrt(1234))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow(x,0.25)
Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))

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 break down the benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which consists of two parts:

1. **Base Benchmark**: "Math.pow(x,0.25) vs Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))"

This base benchmark compares the performance of `Math.pow(x, 0.25)` and `Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))` on the same input value `x`. Both expressions calculate the fourth root of `x`, but using different mathematical operations.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**: "Math.pow(1234, 0.25)"

This test case measures the performance of the `Math.pow(x, 0.25)` expression with a fixed input value `x = 1234`.

2. **Test Case 2**: "Math.sqrt(Math.sqrt(1234))"

This test case measures the performance of the `Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))` expression with a fixed input value `x = 1234`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Math.pow(x, 0.25)**: This option uses the `pow()` function to calculate the fourth root of `x`.
2. **Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))**: This option uses nested square roots to calculate the fourth root of `x`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Math.pow(x, 0.25)**:
	+ Pros: More straightforward implementation, easier to understand.
	+ Cons: May involve more iterations or calculations due to the exponentiation operation.
* **Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))**:
	+ Pros: May be faster due to the nested square root calculation, which can be optimized by the JavaScript engine.
	+ Cons: Less straightforward implementation, may be less intuitive for some developers.

**Library and Special Features**

Neither of the test cases uses any external libraries or special features in this specific benchmark. However, if you were to modify these test cases to use a library like NumJS or other numerical libraries, it would likely impact the performance results.

**Device and Browser Considerations**

The benchmark was executed on a Windows Desktop with Chrome 128 browser. The results are reported for each test case, indicating that there is a difference in execution speed between the two options.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **Using a third-party library**: As mentioned earlier, using a library like NumJS could provide optimized implementations and faster execution times.
2. **Different mathematical operations**: You could experiment with other mathematical operations, such as `Math.sqrt(x) * Math.sqrt(x)` or `Math.exp(log(x))`, to find the most efficient approach.
3. **Caching or memoization**: Implementing caching or memoization techniques could potentially improve performance by avoiding redundant calculations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 17 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/129.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.pow(x,0.25)	13764490.0 Ops/sec
Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))	7305592.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow(x,0.25) vs Math.sqrt(sqrt(x)) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow(x,0.25) vs Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow(x,0.25)

Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))

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):