Benchmark: Canvas image size performance

HTML Preparation code:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>HTML CSS JS</title>
</head>
<body>
  <canvas id='game' width='1920' height='1440'></canvas>
</body>
</html>

Script Preparation code:

const canvas = document.getElementById('game');
const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');

Tests:

no-hd 97.4KB 512x512
const img1 = new Image(); img1.src = "https://i.ibb.co/QQC0N8h/poppyns.png"; // no-hd 97.4KB img1.onload = () => { ctx.save(); const x = 150; const y = 150; const radius = 455; ctx.beginPath(); ctx.arc(x, y, radius, 0, Math.PI * 2, true); ctx.closePath(); ctx.clip(); ctx.drawImage(img1, x - radius, y - radius, radius * 2, radius * 2); ctx.restore(); };
hd-version 433KB - 512x512
const img2 = new Image(); img2.src = "https://i.ibb.co/VVB6ttB/poppyns.png"; // no-hd 97.4KB img2.onload = () => { ctx.save(); const x = 150; const y = 150; const radius = 455; ctx.beginPath(); ctx.arc(x, y, radius, 0, Math.PI * 2, true); ctx.closePath(); ctx.clip(); ctx.drawImage(img2, x - radius, y - radius, radius * 2, radius * 2); ctx.restore(); };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
no-hd 97.4KB 512x512
hd-version 433KB - 512x512

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
no-hd 97.4KB 512x512	81566.9 Ops/sec
hd-version 433KB - 512x512	90141.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the JSON is focused on measuring the performance of rendering images onto an HTML5 canvas element using different image sources. Specifically, it compares the performance of two images: one that is a standard definition (no-hd) image of 97.4KB and another that is a high definition (hd) image of 433KB.

### Test Cases
1. **Test Case 1**: `no-hd 97.4KB 512x512`
   - **Image Source**: A 97.4KB non-high-definition image.
   - **Rendering**: The test initializes an image object, sets its source, and waits for it to load before rendering it onto the canvas. The image is drawn within a circular clipping path on the canvas.

2. **Test Case 2**: `hd-version 433KB - 512x512`
   - **Image Source**: A 433KB high-definition image.
   - **Rendering**: This similarly follows the same logic as the first test, loading the HD image into an image object and rendering it onto the canvas in the same clipping and drawing context.

### Performance Metrics
The benchmark measures the number of executions per second. The results indicate:
- **HD Image**: Approximately 90,141 executions per second.
- **No-HD Image**: Approximately 81,567 executions per second.

### Pros and Cons of Approaches
- **No-HD Image (97.4KB)**:
  - **Pros**:
    - Smaller file size can lead to faster initial load times and reduced memory usage.
    - Better suited for applications where high-resolution images are not necessary, such as thumbnails or small icons.
  - **Cons**:
    - Potential loss of image quality which might not be acceptable for applications requiring detailed visuals.

- **HD Image (433KB)**:
  - **Pros**:
    - Better visual quality, making it suitable for applications where image clarity is important, such as games or graphics-rich web applications.
  - **Cons**:
    - Larger file size can lead to longer loading times and higher memory consumption, especially on lower-end devices.

### Considerations
- **User Experience**: Designers and developers must weigh the trade-off between image loading performance and the quality of visuals. The use of HD images could enhance user experience, but must be balanced against loading performance.
- **Network Conditions**: Users on slower connections may experience significantly different load times based on the image size.
- **Device Performance**: The capabilities of the device running the benchmark can impact rendering performance. Older devices may struggle with larger images more than newer hardware.

### Libraries and Features
In this benchmark, the core functionalities rely on the HTML5 `<canvas>` element and the `CanvasRenderingContext2D` methods provided by the browser's built-in JavaScript environment. The `getContext('2d')` method is essential for drawing 2D graphics on the canvas. Additionally, the `Image` object is a native JavaScript object used for handling image loading and rendering.

### Alternatives
1. **Using WebGL**: For applications that require 3D graphics or more advanced rendering techniques, using WebGL for canvas rendering can improve performance and provide more capabilities. However, it requires greater knowledge of graphics programming.
   
2. **Image Optimization Techniques**: Techniques such as lazy loading and image compression can help reduce file sizes without significant quality loss, potentially improving loading times for images.

3. **SVGs and CSS**: In some cases, using SVGs for vector graphics or CSS for simple shapes and designs may be more efficient, as they can scale without loss of quality and require less loaded data.

In summary, this benchmark effectively evaluates how different image sources impact rendering performance on a canvas. The choice between using low resolution or high resolution images has trade-offs that impact both performance and user experience, underscoring the need for careful consideration in the choice of assets for web applications.

Related benchmarks:

Canvas image size performance (version: 4)

Performance

Comparing performance of: no-hd 97.4KB 512x512 vs hd-version 433KB - 512x512

Created: one month ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

no-hd 97.4KB 512x512

hd-version 433KB - 512x512

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):