Benchmark: Multiply Comparison

Script Preparation code:

var ints = [], prod, i;

for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
  ints[i] = Math.random() * Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER | 0;
}

Tests:

Standard multiply
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { prod = ints[i] * ints[i]; }
Math.imul()
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { prod = Math.imul(ints[i], ints[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Standard multiply
Math.imul()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to multiply two integers in JavaScript: the standard multiplication operator (`*`) and `Math.imul()`. The test case is designed to simulate a large number of multiplications, making it suitable for measuring performance under load.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code initializes an array `ints` with 100,000 random integers between 0 (inclusive) and `Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER` (exclusive). This step sets up the test environment by creating a pool of numbers to be multiplied together.

```javascript
var ints = [], prod, i;
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
  ints[i] = Math.random() * Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER | 0;
}
```

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Standard multiplication operator (`*`)**: This is the most common way to multiply integers in JavaScript. It uses a simple iterative algorithm, but its performance can degrade under load due to the overhead of function calls and potential arithmetic overflows.
2. **`Math.imul()`**: This method provides a more efficient way to perform bit-level multiplication, which can be beneficial for integer-heavy operations like this benchmark. `Math.imul()` is implemented in native code, making it faster than standard multiplication.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Standard multiplication operator (`*`)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can perform poorly under load due to function call overhead and potential arithmetic overflows.
* `Math.imul()`:
	+ Pros: More efficient for bit-level operations like this benchmark. Implemented in native code for better performance.
	+ Cons: Less widely used than standard multiplication operator.

**Library/Functionality**

In the test case, `Math.imul()` is a built-in JavaScript function that provides a more efficient way to perform bit-level multiplication. It's implemented in native code and optimized for performance.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly used. However, if you're interested in testing other features like async/await, Promises, or modern syntax (e.g., arrow functions), those could be added to the script preparation code or modified in the individual test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to extend this benchmark or explore alternative approaches, consider adding more options, such as:

* Using a specific library like `big-integer` for arbitrary-precision arithmetic.
* Implementing custom multiplication algorithms (e.g., using bitwise operations).
* Adding support for floating-point numbers.
* Measuring the performance of other built-in JavaScript functions, like `Math.sqrt()` or `String.prototype.repeat()`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 121 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Standard multiply	11.1 Ops/sec
Math.imul()	6.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Multiply Comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Standard multiply vs Math.imul()

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Standard multiply

Math.imul()

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):