Benchmark: Date.now() vs performance.now()

Tests:

Date.now()
Date.now();
performance.now()
performance.now();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date.now()
performance.now()

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 provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is an object with three properties: `Name`, `Description`, and two optional properties `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. However, in this case, both of these properties are null. The `Name` field specifies the name of the benchmark, which is "Date.now() vs performance.now()". The `Description` field is empty, which means no description for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark has two individual test cases:

1. `Date.now()`: This test case measures the time taken by the `Date.now()` function to execute.
2. `performance.now()`: This test case measures the time taken by the `performance.now()` function to execute.

**Libraries and Special Features**

Neither of the test cases uses any external libraries, so there's no library to describe. However, both functions are built-in JavaScript methods:

* `Date.now()`: Returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, at 00:00:00 UTC.
* `performance.now()`: Returns the number of microseconds since performance timing began.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the time taken by `Date.now()` and `performance.now()` to execute. The main difference between these two functions is their resolution:

* `Date.now()` returns milliseconds, which may not be precise enough for high-performance applications.
* `performance.now()` returns microseconds, which provides a more precise measurement of time.

**Pros and Cons**

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

`Date.now()`

Pros:

* Widely supported across different browsers and platforms
* Simple to use

Cons:

* May not provide sufficient precision for high-performance applications
* Can be affected by various factors, such as timezone changes and system clock updates

`performance.now()`

Pros:

* Provides a more precise measurement of time (microseconds)
* Less affected by external factors compared to `Date.now()`

Cons:

* Limited support on older browsers and platforms
* May not work in older JavaScript engines or environments

**Other Alternatives**

If you need a different way to measure time, here are some alternatives:

1. `new Date().getTime()` (similar to `Date.now()`)
2. `requestAnimationFrame()` with a callback function (for more precise timing)
3. Web APIs like `navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia()` or `performance.getEntriesByType('resource')` for measuring performance

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and limitations, so choose the one that best suits your specific use case.

In this benchmark, it's clear that the user is interested in comparing the execution time of two built-in JavaScript functions with different precision. The results will help users understand which function to use depending on their specific requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date.now()	3906800.5 Ops/sec
performance.now()	1954429.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.now() vs performance.now() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date.now() vs performance.now()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date.now()

performance.now()

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):