Benchmark: math pow vs multiply vs exp

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,2);
mult
var y = 54*54
exp
var z = 54**2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
mult
exp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 131 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	11752974.0 Ops/sec
mult	119821312.0 Ops/sec
exp	129243544.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into sections for easier understanding.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares three different methods to calculate the square of a number: `Math.pow()`, multiplication (`*`), and exponentiation (`**`). The goal is to determine which method is the fastest.

**Options Compared**

1. **Math.pow()**: This method uses the power function from the Math library, which calculates the result by multiplying the base value by itself for a specified number of times.
2. **Multiplication (`*`)**: This method simply multiplies the input value by itself to get the square.
3. **Exponentiation (`**`)**: This method uses the exponentiation operator, which raises the base value to a specified power.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Math.pow()**:
	* Pros:
		+ More accurate for large numbers due to its use of floating-point arithmetic.
		+ Can handle fractional exponents (e.g., `Math.pow(2, 3.5)`).
	* Cons:
		+ Generally slower than the other two methods due to the overhead of the Math library function.
		+ Requires importing the Math library or using a global `Math` object.
2. **Multiplication (`*`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and simple to implement.
		+ Does not require importing any libraries or creating an extra object for exponentiation.
	* Cons:
		+ May lose precision for large numbers due to integer overflow or rounding errors.
		+ Not suitable for fractional exponents.
3. **Exponentiation (`**`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and simple to implement, especially in newer JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome).
		+ Does not require importing any libraries or creating an extra object for exponentiation.
	* Cons:
		+ May lose precision for very large numbers due to integer overflow or rounding errors.
		+ Not supported in older JavaScript engines.

**Library Usage**

The `Math.pow()` method uses the Math library, which provides various mathematical functions like power, square root, and trigonometric functions. The library is a built-in part of most JavaScript environments.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

In this benchmark, no special JavaScript features or syntax are used beyond standard arithmetic operations (`*`, `**`, and exponentiation). However, note that the `**` operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2016 (ES6), so it may not be supported in older environments.

**Other Alternatives**

While the three methods above are common ways to calculate the square of a number, other approaches could also be used:

1. **Recursion**: You can define a recursive function that calls itself with a decreasing exponent until it reaches 0.
2. **Bit manipulation**: Some algorithms use bit manipulation techniques, like bitwise shifts and AND operations, to efficiently compute squares.
3. **Polynomial approximation**: For very large numbers or specific use cases, polynomial approximations (e.g., Taylor series expansions) might be used.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as straightforward or efficient as the methods compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

math pow vs multiply vs exp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult vs exp

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

exp

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):