Benchmark: Date.now vs new Date()

Tests:

new Date()
(new Date()).getMinutes()
More efficient
const now = Date.now() return ((now - (now % 60000)) / 60000) % 60

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date()
More efficient

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Date()	2830806.5 Ops/sec
More efficient	4406490.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark tests on MeasureThat.net.

The benchmark being tested is the difference in performance between using `Date.now()` and creating a new `Date` object and calling its `getMinutes()` method. This test aims to measure which approach is more efficient.

**Options compared:**

1. **Using `Date.now()`**: This function returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). It's a simple and straightforward way to get the current time in milliseconds.
2. **Creating a new `Date` object and calling `getMinutes()`**: This approach creates a new `Date` object and extracts its minutes using the `getMinutes()` method.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Using `Date.now()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fastest way to get the current time in milliseconds.
		+ Least overhead in terms of memory allocation and object creation.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for applications that require precise timestamping or timezone calculations.
2. **Creating a new `Date` object and calling `getMinutes()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can provide more accurate timestamping and timezone information compared to `Date.now()`.
	* Cons:
		+ More memory-intensive due to the creation of a new object.
		+ Slower than using `Date.now()` due to object creation and method call overhead.

**Library used:**

In this test, the only library being used is the JavaScript `Date` API. The `Date` object provides methods for working with dates and times, including `getMinutes()`, which extracts the minutes from a date value.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to measure time intervals or precise timestamping, you may consider using other JavaScript libraries or built-in functions like:

1. **`performance.now()`**: Returns the number of milliseconds since the performance.now() method was called.
2. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat().resolvedOptions().timeZone`**: Provides accurate timezone information and can be used for precise timestamping.

However, in most cases, using `Date.now()` is sufficient for measuring elapsed time intervals or basic timestamping requirements.

The benchmark results provided show that the test is comparing the performance of these two approaches. The "More efficient" test case with 4406490 executions per second indicates a faster execution rate compared to the "new Date()" test case, which has an execution rate of 2830806.5 seconds.

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: new Date() vs More efficient

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date()

More efficient

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):