Benchmark: Math.pow vs Math.sqrt vs bit operation

Tests:

Math.pow(16, 2)
Math.pow(16, 2)
Math.sqrt(16)
Math.sqrt(16)
16 ** .5
16 ** .5

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow(16, 2)
Math.sqrt(16)
16 ** .5

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; LG-H870DS) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.90 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 89 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.pow(16, 2)	1398305.1 Ops/sec
Math.sqrt(16)	1399708.2 Ops/sec
16 ** .5	634996224.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition json represents the test cases for measuring the performance of different mathematical operations in JavaScript.

**Tested Operations and Options**

The benchmark tests three different mathematical operations:

1. **Math.pow()**: Calculates the power of a number (e.g., `Math.pow(16, 2)`).
2. **Math.sqrt()**: Calculates the square root of a number (e.g., `Math.sqrt(16)`).
3. **Bitwise Operation**: This operation is not explicitly defined in the benchmark definition json, but based on the test cases, it seems to be equivalent to calculating the power using bitwise operations (`16 ** .5`).

Each of these operations has different implementation options:

* **Math.pow()**: Uses a built-in function in JavaScript's Math library.
* **Math.sqrt()**: Also uses a built-in function in JavaScript's Math library.
* **Bitwise Operation**: Requires manual implementation using bitwise operators (e.g., `16 ** .5`).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Using Built-in Functions (Math.pow(), Math.sqrt())**:
	* Pros: Fast execution, easy to implement, and maintainable.
	* Cons: May be less efficient than manual implementations due to overhead from the JavaScript engine.
2. **Manual Implementation (Bitwise Operation)**:
	* Pros: Can potentially be faster due to direct hardware access, but requires manual implementation and maintenance.
	* Cons: More complex to write and debug, may introduce errors.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases explicitly use any libraries beyond the built-in JavaScript Math library. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have additional libraries or extensions that could affect the results (e.g., Chromium's `chrome://extensions/` page).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark definition json does not include any special JS features or syntax beyond the standard JavaScript programming language.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

If you're interested in measuring different mathematical operations, consider adding more test cases to your benchmark. Some alternatives could be:

* **Exponentiation with `**` operator**: Compare performance of using the exponentiation operator (`16 ** 0.5`) against manual implementations.
* **Logarithmic calculations**: Measure performance of calculating logarithms (e.g., `Math.log(16)`) using different methods (e.g., `Math.log10()` or manual implementation).

To create a new benchmark on MeasureThat.net, follow these steps:

1. Go to [MeasureThat.net](https://www.measurethat.net/) and click "Create a Benchmark".
2. Fill in the required information for your benchmark.
3. Add test cases using the provided format (JSON).
4. Run your benchmark to collect results.

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is primarily intended for JavaScript microbenchmarks, so focus on testing JavaScript-specific operations and features.

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow vs Math.sqrt vs bit operation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow(16, 2) vs Math.sqrt(16) vs 16 ** .5

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow(16, 2)

Math.sqrt(16)

16 ** .5

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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