Benchmark: testing - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

s1
var x = true; var a = 54; var b = 14; if(x){ for(m=0;m<1000;m+=2){ var z = a+m*b; }; for(m=1;m<1000;m+=2){ var z = -a-m*b; }; } else { for(m=0;m<1000;m++){ var z = a+m*b; }; };
s2
var x = 2; var a = 54; var b = 14; for(m=0;m<1000;m++){ var z = (-(m%x*2-1)*a)+(-(m%x*2-1)*m)*b; };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
s1
s2

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 break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code on various browsers and devices. The benchmark consists of two test cases (s1 and s2), each with a different script preparation code that defines a simple arithmetic expression involving loops and conditional statements.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is not provided, but based on the Benchmark Definition JSON, we can infer that it likely sets up some initial values, such as variables `x`, `a`, `b`, and `m`. The exact code is not relevant to the analysis, but it's essential to understand how the script prepares the environment for execution.

**Test Cases**

The two test cases are:

1. **s1**: This test case uses a traditional `if-else` statement with inner loops that iterate 1000 times, each performing two calculations (`z = a+m*b` and `z = -a-m*b`). The loop increments by 2 to skip every other iteration.
2. **s2**: This test case uses a single `for` loop that iterates 1000 times, performing a complex calculation involving the modulo operator (`m%x*2-1`) and arithmetic operations on variables `a`, `b`, and `m`.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **s1 (Traditional Loops)**: This approach uses traditional loops with `if-else` statements, which can be slower due to the overhead of conditional branching.
2. **s2 (Modulo-based Calculation)**: This approach uses a single loop and a complex calculation involving the modulo operator, which may offer better performance due to its optimized nature.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional Loops (s1)**:
	+ Pros: Easier to understand and maintain for developers familiar with traditional loops.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to conditional branching and loop overhead.
* **Modulo-based Calculation (s2)**:
	+ Pros: Optimized calculation that may offer better performance, especially on platforms with modern CPU architectures.
	+ Cons: More complex code that may be harder for developers to understand and maintain.

**Library and Special Features**

Neither test case uses any external libraries or special JavaScript features. The benchmark is designed to focus solely on the performance differences between these two approaches.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives could include:

* **Parallel Processing**: Running multiple instances of each test case in parallel to compare execution times.
* **Different Loop Variables**: Using different loop variables, such as `i` or `j`, instead of `m`.
* **Loop Unrolling**: Increasing the number of iterations per loop iteration to reduce overhead.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide a meaningful comparison with the current test cases and might require additional setup and optimization.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 56 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
s1	6379.6 Ops/sec
s2	3260.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: s1 vs s2

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

s1

s2

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):