Benchmark: Coordinate test 5

Script Preparation code:

var width = 480;
var halfWidth = width >> 1;
var invertedHalfWidth = 1 / halfWidth;

Tests:

Conditional comparison
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuadLeft = xPos < halfWidth ? 0 : 1;
Bitwise comparison
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var diff = xPos ^ halfWidth; diff |= diff >> 1; diff |= diff >> 2; diff |= diff >> 4; diff |= diff >> 8; diff |= diff >> 16; diff &= ~(diff >> 1) | 0x80000000; diff &= (xPos ^ 0x80000000) & (halfWidth ^ 0x7fffffff); var xQuad = !!diff;
Other test
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos ^ halfWidth && ( !(halfWidth ^ 0) || ( (xPos / halfWidth) | 0 ) );
Other test 2
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos == width ? 1 : ( ( xPos * invertedHalfWidth ) | 0 );
Other test 3
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos == width ? 1 : ~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth );
Other test 4
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = ~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Conditional comparison
Bitwise comparison
Other test
Other test 2
Other test 3
Other test 4

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of different approaches for comparing numbers in JavaScript. The tests are designed to measure the time it takes for the browser to execute each comparison.

**Options compared:**

1. **Conditional comparison**: `xPos < halfWidth ? 0 : 1`
	* This option uses a simple conditional statement to determine whether `xPos` is less than `halfWidth`.
2. **Bitwise comparison**: The test code uses bitwise operators (`^`, `|`, `&`) to compare `xPos` and `halfWidth`. Specifically, it uses the XOR operator (`^`) to find the difference between the two values.
3. **Floating-point comparison**: `xPos == width`
	* This option compares `xPos` with `width` using a floating-point equality check.
4. **Integer comparison (rounding)**: `~~(xPos * invertedHalfWidth)`
	* This option rounds down `xPos` to the nearest integer by using the unary negation operator (`~`) after multiplying it with `invertedHalfWidth`.
5. **Other comparisons**: There are four other tests that use similar approaches, but with different arithmetic operations.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Conditional comparison**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, straightforward code.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of evaluating a conditional statement.
2. **Bitwise comparison**:
	* Pros: Can be faster due to the use of bitwise operators, which are often optimized by the CPU.
	* Cons: May require more complex and harder-to-read code.
3. **Floating-point comparison**:
	* Pros: Fast and accurate for floating-point comparisons.
	* Cons: May be slower than integer comparisons due to the overhead of comparing floating-point numbers.
4. **Integer comparison (rounding)**:
	* Pros: Similar speed to floating-point comparison, with the added benefit of rounding down to an integer.
	* Cons: May not provide accurate results for certain input values.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Library usage**: The benchmark does not use any external libraries or frameworks.
2. **Special JS features**: There are no special JavaScript features used in this benchmark, such as async/await or Promises.
3. **Alternative approaches**: Other alternative approaches could include using assembly language or compiled languages like C++ to compare numbers.

**Latest benchmark result:**

The latest benchmark results show that the bitwise comparison approach is generally faster than the other options, while the floating-point comparison and integer comparison (rounding) approaches are similar in speed.

**Conclusion:**

This benchmark provides a useful comparison of different approaches for comparing numbers in JavaScript. By testing these different approaches, developers can gain insight into the performance characteristics of each method and make informed decisions about which approach to use depending on their specific needs and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Conditional comparison	3606998.0 Ops/sec
Bitwise comparison	2846421.8 Ops/sec
Other test	2385217.0 Ops/sec
Other test 2	2833298.5 Ops/sec
Other test 3	2834286.8 Ops/sec
Other test 4	3475396.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Coordinate test 5 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Conditional comparison vs Bitwise comparison vs Other test vs Other test 2 vs Other test 3 vs Other test 4

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Conditional comparison

Bitwise comparison

Other test

Other test 2

Other test 3

Other test 4

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):