Benchmark: PID vs DrawImage

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id='master' width='100' height='100'></canvas>
<canvas id='clone' width='100' height='100'></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var master = document.getElementById('master');
var masterctx = master.getContext('2d');
var clone = document.getElementById('master').getContext('2d');

masterctx.fillRect(0,0,50,50);
masterctx.fillStyle = "red";
masterctx.fillRect(50,50,100,100);
var img = masterctx.getImageData(0,0,100,100);

var half = masterctx.getImageData(25,0,50,100);

Tests:

di full
clone.drawImage(master,0,0); clone.clearRect(0,0,100,100);
di half
clone.drawImage(master,25,0,50,100,25,0,50,100); clone.clearRect(0,0,100,100);
pid full
clone.putImageData(img,0,0); clone.clearRect(0,0,100,100);
pid half
clone.putImageData(half,25,0); clone.clearRect(0,0,100,100);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
di full
di half
pid full
pid half

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to draw an image on a canvas: using `drawImage()` with the entire image, and using `putImageData()`. The benchmark consists of four test cases:

1. `di full`: Drawing the entire image using `drawImage()`.
2. `di half`: Drawing only half of the image using `drawImage()`, with x and y coordinates specified.
3. `pid full`: Using `putImageData()` to draw the entire image.
4. `pid half`: Using `putImageData()` to draw only half of the image.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **`drawImage()`**: A method on the canvas element that draws an image onto it. It's fast but might have performance implications when dealing with large images or complex transformations.
2. **`putImageData()`**: A method that creates a new image data object from an existing image, and then draws it onto the canvas using a specific x and y coordinate.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `drawImage()`:
	+ Pros: Fast, easy to use, good for simple transformations.
	+ Cons: Might not be optimized for large images or complex transformations, potentially slower than `putImageData()` for certain scenarios.
* `putImageData()`:
	+ Pros: Can handle larger images and more complex transformations without significant performance degradation, allows for precise control over the drawing process.
	+ Cons: Slower than `drawImage()`, requires creating an image data object and handling pixel data.

**Libraries and Features**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark. However, some features that might be considered "special" include:

* Canvas elements (`<canvas>`) are native HTML5 elements for rendering graphics.
* The 2D drawing context (`getContext('2d')`) is a part of the canvas element's API.

**Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in `drawImage()` and `putImageData()` methods, which are standard features in modern browsers. No special or experimental JavaScript features are used.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to drawing images on a canvas, some options include:

* Using the `HTMLCanvasElement` API with WebGL or WebGL 2 for more advanced graphics capabilities.
* Utilizing third-party libraries like Three.js or Fabric.js for complex graphics and animations.
* Implementing custom pixel data manipulation using techniques like image filtering or pixel shuffling.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant to this specific benchmark, which focuses on the performance difference between `drawImage()` and `putImageData()`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.135 Safari/537.36 OPR/70.0.3728.189

Browser/OS: Opera 70 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
di full	86676.4 Ops/sec
di half	88346.9 Ops/sec
pid full	109581.2 Ops/sec
pid half	92406.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

PID vs DrawImage (version: 0)

PID vs DrawImage

Comparing performance of: di full vs di half vs pid full vs pid half

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

di full

di half

pid full

pid half

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):