Benchmark: math pow vs multiply (subtraction)

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(1 - 0.25, 5);
mult
var y = (1 - 0.25) * (1 - 0.25) * (1 - 0.25) * (1 - 0.25) * (1 - 0.25)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
mult

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.138 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Mac OS X 10.15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	7155423.5 Ops/sec
mult	851915136.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark definitions to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is a simple mathematical expression that calculates the result of raising 1 minus 0.25 to the power of 5 using either the `Math.pow()` function or multiplication. The idea behind this benchmark is to compare the performance of these two approaches for a specific use case.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options compared:

1. **`Math.pow()`**: This method raises the first argument (base) to the power of the second argument (exponent).
2. **Multiplication with exponentiation by repeated subtraction**: This approach uses multiplication instead of `Math.pow()`, effectively implementing exponentiation through repeated subtraction.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Math.pow()`**:
	+ Pros: More intuitive, expressive, and concise way to calculate exponents.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of the `Math` object and potential intermediate results.
* **Multiplication with exponentiation by repeated subtraction**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster because it eliminates the need for intermediate calculations and reduces memory allocation.
	+ Cons: Less readable, more cumbersome, and may lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly.

**Library**
None of the test cases use a library. The benchmarking script is simple and self-contained.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks. Both approaches rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

Now, let's consider some alternatives:

* **Other approaches**: There might be other ways to implement exponentiation, such as using the `Math.exp()` function (e.g., `Math.pow(2, 5)`) or even using bitwise operations (e.g., `(1 << 20)` for 5).
* **Alternative test cases**: The benchmark could include additional test cases with varying exponents, bases, or other mathematical expressions to further evaluate the performance of both approaches.
* **Comparison against other libraries or frameworks**: To gain more insight into the performance of `Math.pow()` and multiplication-based exponentiation, it might be interesting to compare them against implementations in other languages or libraries.

The current benchmark is a basic example that demonstrates the trade-offs between using built-in functions versus manual implementation for mathematical operations.

Related benchmarks:

math pow vs multiply (subtraction) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

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):