Benchmark: Date.now() vs +new Date()

HTML Preparation code:


<script src=''></script>

Script Preparation code:

var timestamp = null;

Tests:

keme1
timestamp = Date.now();
keme2
timestamp = + new Date;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
keme1
keme2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.121 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
keme1	2138962.8 Ops/sec
keme2	1346705.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different ways to get the current timestamp: `Date.now()` vs `+new Date()`. The benchmark definition specifies how to prepare the script and HTML for execution.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. `Date.now()`: This method returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC) as an integer.
2. `+new Date()`: This method converts a new Date object to its numeric representation in milliseconds.

**Pros and Cons**

- **`Date.now()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., when working with older browsers or systems).
- **`+new Date()`**:
	+ Pros: Can provide a more precise timestamp than `Date.now()`, especially in older browsers that might have issues with milliseconds.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive, may require explicit conversion to a numeric value.

**Library and Special JS Features**

Neither of the options relies on any specific library. However, if you were to compare other methods, libraries like `moment.js` or `date-fns` could be used for date manipulation.

**Special JS Feature**

There is no special JavaScript feature being tested in this benchmark. Both options are standard and widely supported.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test different timestamp-related functions, some alternatives might include:

- `Performance.now()`: Returns the value (in fractional seconds) of a performance counter that can be used as a clock.
- `Date.UTC(year, month, day, hour, minute, second, ms)` or its shorthand `Date.UTC()`: Returns the timestamp in milliseconds for a specific UTC date and time.

These alternatives would depend on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Date.now() vs +new Date() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: keme1 vs keme2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

keme1

keme2

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):