Benchmark: +new Date vs new Date().getTime() vs Date.now() 100k

Tests:

+new Date
for(let i = 0; i < 100000;i++){ +new Date; }
new Date().getTime()
for(let i = 0; i < 100000;i++){ new Date().getTime(); }
Date.now()
for(let i = 0; i < 100000;i++){ Date.now() }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
+new Date
new Date().getTime()
Date.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 dive into explaining the benchmark and its components.

**What is tested:**

The provided JSON represents a set of benchmarks that test the performance of three different ways to get the current timestamp in JavaScript:

1. `+new Date`
2. `new Date().getTime()`
3. `Date.now()`

These methods are used to measure the execution time and frequency of these functions.

**Options compared:**

The three options are compared in terms of their performance, which is measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) on a specific browser, device platform, and operating system.

**Pros and Cons:**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. `+new Date`:
	* Pros: Simple and concise syntax.
	* Cons: Creates a new Date object every time it's used, which can lead to performance issues if not optimized correctly.
2. `new Date().getTime()`:
	* Pros: Returns the timestamp as a numeric value, allowing for more precise comparisons.
	* Cons: Creates a new Date object and then calls its `getTime` method, which can be slower than other options.
3. `Date.now()`:
	* Pros: Native to JavaScript and optimized for performance.
	* Cons: May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support it.

**Library:**

There is no external library used in this benchmark, as all three options are native JavaScript functions.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None of the options use any special JavaScript features or syntax. They only rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to compare other methods for getting the current timestamp, some alternative approaches include:

* `Date.now()` (as mentioned earlier)
* `performance.now()` (available in modern browsers and Node.js environments)
* Using a third-party library like Moment.js or Luxon
* Implementing your own custom timestamp function

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The benchmark preparation code is not provided, but it's likely that the script generates 100k iterations of each test case using a loop.

**Individual test cases:**

Each test case consists of a single execution of one of the three options, repeated 100k times. This allows for a simple and straightforward comparison of their performance.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its components!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 16 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
+new Date	66.3 Ops/sec
new Date().getTime()	92.9 Ops/sec
Date.now()	104.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

+new Date vs new Date().getTime() vs Date.now() 100k (version: 0)

testing performance of +new Date vs new Date().getTime() vs Date.now() with 100k iteration

Comparing performance of: +new Date vs new Date().getTime() vs Date.now()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

+new Date

new Date().getTime()

Date.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):