Benchmark: perfomance.now vs Date.now vs new Date().getTime()

Script Preparation code:

var timestamp = null;

Tests:

performance.now()
timestamp = performance.now();
Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now();
new Date().getTime();
timestamp = new Date().getTime();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
performance.now()
Date.now()
new Date().getTime();

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different methods to get the current timestamp in JavaScript:

1. `performance.now()`
2. `Date.now()`
3. `new Date().getTime()`

These methods are designed to provide the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC) or since the system started running, respectively.

**Options compared**

The three options are being compared in terms of their performance (in executions per second) on a specific browser and device platform:

* `performance.now()`: This method uses the Web API's `performance` object to get the current timestamp. It is designed to be more precise than other methods, especially for high-frequency applications like gaming or real-time analytics.
* `Date.now()`: This method uses the built-in `Date` object to get the current timestamp. It is a simple and widely supported approach but can be less precise than `performance.now()` due to its reliance on the system clock.
* `new Date().getTime()`: This method creates a new `Date` object and calls its `getTime()` method to get the current timestamp. Like `Date.now()`, it relies on the system clock, which can introduce variability and less precision compared to `performance.now()`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **performance.now()**
	+ Pros:
		- High precision (typically 15-16 decimal places)
		- Optimized for high-frequency applications
		- Provides a more accurate representation of time elapsed since the last call
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of accessing the Web API's performance object
		- Less widely supported on older browsers or platforms
* **Date.now()**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and widely supported (across all modern browsers and platforms)
		- Fast execution time
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce variability due to system clock inaccuracies
		- Less precise than `performance.now()` (typically 10 decimal places)
* **new Date().getTime()**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and widely supported (across all modern browsers and platforms)
		- Fast execution time
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce variability due to system clock inaccuracies
		- Less precise than `performance.now()` (typically 10 decimal places)

**Library usage**

None of the benchmark's test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The benchmark uses the `performance` object, which is a Web API feature specifically designed for high-performance applications. The `new Date().getTime()` method also relies on JavaScript's built-in `Date` object and its `getTime()` method.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to get the current timestamp in JavaScript without relying on these methods, some alternative approaches exist:

* Using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API or a polyfill for older browsers (e.g., IE 8-9)
* Utilizing the `Date.now()` method with optional timestamp adjustments (e.g., using `Math.floor()` to round down to milliseconds)
* Implementing a custom timestamp generator based on the system clock

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have performance trade-offs or limitations, and it's essential to evaluate their suitability for your specific use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
performance.now()	4835789.0 Ops/sec
Date.now()	7312670.0 Ops/sec
new Date().getTime();	6815347.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of perfomance.now, Date.now and new Date().getTime()

Comparing performance of: performance.now() vs Date.now() vs new Date().getTime();

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

performance.now()

Date.now()

new Date().getTime();

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):