Is 'switch' faster than 'if'?

Question

Is a `switch` statement *actually* faster than an `if` statement?I ran the code below on Visual Studio 2010's x64 C++ compiler with the `/Ox` flag: #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h>  #define MAX_COUNT (1 << 29) size_t counter = 0; size_t testSwitch() {  clock_t start = clock();  size_t i;  for (i = 0; i < MAX_COUNT; i++)  {   switch (counter % 4 + 1)   {    case 1: counter += 4; break;    case 2: counter += 3; break;    case 3: counter += 2; break;    case 4: counter += 1; break;   }  }  return 1000 * (clock() - start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; }  size_t testIf() {  clock_t start = clock();  size_t i;  for (i = 0; i < MAX_COUNT; i++)  {   const size_t c = counter % 4 + 1;   if (c == 1) { counter += 4; }   else if (c == 2) { counter += 3; }   else if (c == 3) { counter += 2; }   else if (c == 4) { counter += 1; }  }  return 1000 * (clock() - start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; }  int main() {  printf("Starting...\\n");  printf("Switch statement: %u ms\\n", testSwitch());  printf("If statement: %u ms\\n", testIf()); }and got these results:> Switch statement: 5261 ms > If statement: 5196 msFrom what I've learned, `switch` statements apparently use jump tables to optimize the branching.##Questions:1. What would a basic jump table look like, in x86 or x64?2. Is this code using a jump table?3. Why is there no performance difference in this example? Is there any situation in which there *is* a significant performance difference?******Disassembly of the code: testIf: 13FE81B10 sub rsp,48h  13FE81B14 call qword ptr [__imp_clock (13FE81128h)]  13FE81B1A mov dword ptr [start],eax  13FE81B1E mov qword ptr [i],0  13FE81B27 jmp testIf+26h (13FE81B36h)  13FE81B29 mov rax,qword ptr [i]  13FE81B2E inc rax  13FE81B31 mov qword ptr [i],rax  13FE81B36 cmp qword ptr [i],20000000h  13FE81B3F jae testIf+0C3h (13FE81BD3h)  13FE81B45 xor edx,edx  13FE81B47 mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81B4E mov ecx,4  13FE81B53 div rax,rcx  13FE81B56 mov rax,rdx  13FE81B59 inc rax  13FE81B5C mov qword ptr [c],rax  13FE81B61 cmp qword ptr [c],1  13FE81B67 jne testIf+6Dh (13FE81B7Dh)  13FE81B69 mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81B70 add rax,4  13FE81B74 mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81B7B jmp testIf+0BEh (13FE81BCEh)  13FE81B7D cmp qword ptr [c],2  13FE81B83 jne testIf+89h (13FE81B99h)  13FE81B85 mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81B8C add rax,3  13FE81B90 mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81B97 jmp testIf+0BEh (13FE81BCEh)  13FE81B99 cmp qword ptr [c],3  13FE81B9F jne testIf+0A5h (13FE81BB5h)  13FE81BA1 mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81BA8 add rax,2  13FE81BAC mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81BB3 jmp testIf+0BEh (13FE81BCEh)  13FE81BB5 cmp qword ptr [c],4  13FE81BBB jne testIf+0BEh (13FE81BCEh)  13FE81BBD mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81BC4 inc rax  13FE81BC7 mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81BCE jmp testIf+19h (13FE81B29h)  13FE81BD3 call qword ptr [__imp_clock (13FE81128h)]  13FE81BD9 sub eax,dword ptr [start]  13FE81BDD imul eax,eax,3E8h  13FE81BE3 cdq  13FE81BE4 mov ecx,3E8h  13FE81BE9 idiv eax,ecx  13FE81BEB cdqe  13FE81BED add rsp,48h  13FE81BF1 ret ------------- testSwitch: 13FE81C00 sub rsp,48h  13FE81C04 call qword ptr [__imp_clock (13FE81128h)]  13FE81C0A mov dword ptr [start],eax  13FE81C0E mov qword ptr [i],0  13FE81C17 jmp testSwitch+26h (13FE81C26h)  13FE81C19 mov rax,qword ptr [i]  13FE81C1E inc rax  13FE81C21 mov qword ptr [i],rax  13FE81C26 cmp qword ptr [i],20000000h  13FE81C2F jae testSwitch+0C5h (13FE81CC5h)  13FE81C35 xor edx,edx  13FE81C37 mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81C3E mov ecx,4  13FE81C43 div rax,rcx  13FE81C46 mov rax,rdx  13FE81C49 inc rax  13FE81C4C mov qword ptr [rsp+30h],rax  13FE81C51 cmp qword ptr [rsp+30h],1  13FE81C57 je testSwitch+73h (13FE81C73h)  13FE81C59 cmp qword ptr [rsp+30h],2  13FE81C5F je testSwitch+87h (13FE81C87h)  13FE81C61 cmp qword ptr [rsp+30h],3  13FE81C67 je testSwitch+9Bh (13FE81C9Bh)  13FE81C69 cmp qword ptr [rsp+30h],4  13FE81C6F je testSwitch+0AFh (13FE81CAFh)  13FE81C71 jmp testSwitch+0C0h (13FE81CC0h)  13FE81C73 mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81C7A add rax,4  13FE81C7E mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81C85 jmp testSwitch+0C0h (13FE81CC0h)  13FE81C87 mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81C8E add rax,3  13FE81C92 mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81C99 jmp testSwitch+0C0h (13FE81CC0h)  13FE81C9B mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81CA2 add rax,2  13FE81CA6 mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81CAD jmp testSwitch+0C0h (13FE81CC0h)  13FE81CAF mov rax,qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)]  13FE81CB6 inc rax  13FE81CB9 mov qword ptr [counter (13FE835D0h)],rax  13FE81CC0 jmp testSwitch+19h (13FE81C19h)  13FE81CC5 call qword ptr [__imp_clock (13FE81128h)]  13FE81CCB sub eax,dword ptr [start]  13FE81CCF imul eax,eax,3E8h  13FE81CD5 cdq  13FE81CD6 mov ecx,3E8h  13FE81CDB idiv eax,ecx  13FE81CDD cdqe  13FE81CDF add rsp,48h  13FE81CE3 ret ---------###Update:Interesting results [here](https://www.ideone.com/GXKX3j). Not sure why one is faster and one is slower, though.

Answer 1

You have only ran the program once, and that is not a random sample.

RUn the program at least 30 times, average the times in milliseconds of the switch statement

vs the nested if statements.

ANd even if it is faster, there are situations where the switch statement cannot be used. Specifically,

when comparing strings or composite types.

So there is no way you can use only switch statements alone.