![Photo](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/af9d9055f63398e5f57af9b278e52c86?s=100&d=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.casiocalc.org%2Fdot%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_images%2Fmaster%2Fprofile%2Fdefault_large.png)
Fast, Non-symbolic Calc.
#1
Posted 03 November 2004 - 06:41 PM
I've got a GFX9850GB PLUS and I think it is a bit slow drawing graphs, using g-solv or calculating heavy functions. I've seen and tried the texas TI-84 silver ed. and it is much much faster, but I really hate using texas calcs. I find casio to be much more user-friendly.
My question is if there are any casio calcs that are not symbolic (symbolic calcs such as the algebra FX 2.0 is not allowed on my exams), and that are faster than my current calc. I really want to keep the user-friendliness of my current calc...
If not the only option may be something like the TI-84 silver ed., and I would hate that. I suspect I would use months learning how to do stuff.
Thanks for any help
Edit: Whats the difference between the 9850GB PLUS(WE) and the non-(WE) version?
#2
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 03 November 2004 - 06:56 PM
WE (IMHO mean "white edition").
#3
Posted 03 November 2004 - 07:24 PM
#4
Posted 03 November 2004 - 07:57 PM
there is also (i think) a memory boost in the WE calcs... but if you want faster graphing use a non-color calc. (fx models) you could get the FX2.0 which doesnt (without some hacking) have symbolic calculatons and is very powerfull.
What do you mean? Could I remove the symbolic part of the software? I guess it would have to be impossible to restore on the calc for me to be able to use it on an exam. Is that possible?
#5
Posted 03 November 2004 - 08:03 PM
you could also get an AFX and remove the icons for CAS and Tutor, effectivly making it a FX. (ive done that before for some classes)
#6
Posted 03 November 2004 - 08:05 PM
![:)](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
(yea what he said, I was a little slow)
#7
Posted 03 November 2004 - 08:15 PM
Do you know if it is possible to do the same to the classpad 300? That calc would be a dream if it is fast...
#8
Posted 03 November 2004 - 08:22 PM
![:)](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
unfortunately that cannot be done to the CP (ive asked casio about it), since the CAS is integrated into the OS, you can litterally use the CAS in anything.
#9
Posted 03 November 2004 - 08:32 PM
the A/FX is much faster than the CFX because it does not use colors (it has to draw each color, taking ~3x as long). Plus the A/FX can use add-ins
unfortunately that cannot be done to the CP (ive asked casio about it), since the CAS is integrated into the OS, you can litterally use the CAS in anything.
Does the 9850GB PLUS take 3 times as long even if I don't use different colors?
Also, do you know of any online shops of some size that sells the FX2.0 (non symbolic)?
#10
Posted 03 November 2004 - 09:30 PM
you can try E-BAY (use the link on the forum
![:)](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
#11
Posted 03 November 2004 - 09:42 PM
yep, even if you dont use the colors it still takes just as long.
you can try E-BAY (use the link on the forum)
Does the FX2.0 have all the functions of the 9850? I'm guessing it has considering the price, but gotta be sure since it is quite expensive.
Am I to understand that the FX2.0 is the same speed as the 9850 when not dealing with graphs? Or is the speed advantage there in all functions?
#12
Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:17 PM
#13
Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:31 PM
![:rolleyes:](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
#14
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 04 November 2004 - 05:29 AM
Graph Y=sin e -x
(Rad)
Xmin = -1
max = 1
Ymin = 0
max = 1
fx-7000GA - 9.6 sec
cfx-9850G - 7.6 sec
AFX 2.0Plus - 8.9 sec
#15
Posted 04 November 2004 - 02:27 PM
![:roflol:](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/lmao.gif)
#16
Posted 04 November 2004 - 05:09 PM
Sergei: are you sure about those figures? its a well known fact that the CFX is much slower than the AFX for graphing (i have a CFX, AFX, and CP and the diffrence between each is huge)
#17
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 04 November 2004 - 05:59 PM
Sergei: are you sure about those figures? its a well known fact that the CFX is much slower than the AFX for graphing (i have a CFX, AFX, and CP and the diffrence between each is huge)
Yes, I have rechecked these tests.
And also have make another test (not depended on complex formula)
For 1-> A to 10: Graph Y = .2: Cls : Next
fx-7000G - 17.8 sec
CFX-9850G - 13.3 sec
AFX 2.0 Plus - 12.5 sec
So, math in the 9850G is faster, but graphs draw is slower than AFX 2.0+
Notes:
1. fx-7000G has a little different program, because it has not the For command.
2. Stopwatch used from fx-8100
![;)](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif)
#18
Posted 04 November 2004 - 06:04 PM
#19
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 04 November 2004 - 06:08 PM
ok, the afx is probably slower in math because of greater percision... thats my guess anyway.
Greater precision? AFX 2.0 and CFX-9850FG both has 15 internal digits.
#20
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:07 PM
#21
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:37 PM
Bye
#22
Posted 08 November 2004 - 06:37 PM
64800/(14175-14.86x). I am not solving it graphically. I am typing it on the casio like this: "integration-sign"(64800/(14175-14.86x,0,950). Answer is 23980.
I would really like to know how long this takes on calcs like the AFX2.0, the TI-84, TI-89, Classpad and so on. I have decided to buy a new calc now and I would really like having some comparisons of the speed of different calcs.
Thanks for any help here.
#23
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 08 November 2004 - 08:37 PM
afx 2.0 : 6.9 sec (23978.58205)
fx-991MS: 1m28sec (24000)
ti-89: 0.6 sec (23978.5820491)
hp-49g+: 49.3 sec (23978.582049)
hp-33s: 2m53sec (23978.582049)
srp-300: 11.3 sec (56566.21289)
(all tests used default values for accuracy).
#24
Posted 08 November 2004 - 08:49 PM
#25
Posted 08 November 2004 - 09:09 PM
---
CASIO CFX-9940GT+ (RUN mode) : 13.8 sec (23980)
CASIO AFX ROM 1.02 (RUN mode) : 6.8 sec (23978.58205)
CASIO AFX ROM 1.02 (CAS mode) : 2.5 sec (exact value)
CASIO CP300 OS 1.24 (MAIN mode) : 0.7 sec (exact value)
#26
Guest_Guest_*
Posted 11 November 2004 - 01:43 PM
Strange indeed. I would thing the HP would do alot better atleast what with the 75MHz processor and all. And the TI-89 is just extreme. Is the TI as fast as that compared to the others in other operations as well?
FYI, the GHP49g+ takes 1.8405 seconds (measured with the built in TEVAL) to integrate this, IF you do the integration in exact mode, then convert to a number. It sounds like Sergei Frolov was doing the integration numerically. If instead, you do it symbolically, its alot quicker.
#27
Posted 12 November 2004 - 04:05 PM
EDIT:
It is true that the HP-49G+ has a 75MHz ARM processer but, the calculator itself runs an emulator program which emulates the HP-49G. Much of the processing power of the ARM processer goes to emulating the older calculator. As I understand it, very little of the code has been rewritten to use the newer processer. So, the calculator is about equal in speed to the TI-89.I would thing the HP would do alot better atleast what with the 75MHz processor and all
#28
Guest_Guest_Michael_*_*
Posted 01 March 2005 - 08:26 PM
#29
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 01 March 2005 - 08:40 PM
fx-7000GA: 0.04W, more yellow display background
fx-7000GA has additional hidden functions
![<span class=](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/SHIFT.jpg)
![<span class=](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/multiply.jpg)
![<span class=](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/SHIFT.jpg)
In the fx-7000GA may be also some bug corrections.
#30
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 20 December 2006 - 08:23 PM
#31
Posted 20 December 2006 - 10:27 PM
http://www.rskey.org...;model=fx-7200G
The fx-7200G appears to be yet another variant of Casio's classic family of graphing calculators that began with the fx-7000G. The two models seem to differ only in appearance; functionally, they are identical.
There may be differences in as far as bug fixes or power ratings are concerned, but I don't know.
Now, I'm going to be pedantic: I can't resist correcting some of the things said in this topic:
you could get the FX2.0 which doesnt (without some hacking) have symbolic calculatons and is very powerfull.
well, the FX2.0 is really the AFX with the CAS and Tutor "hidden".
There is no FX 2.0, only the Algebra FX 2.0 ( also known as Afx ) which does have symbolic calculations.
It is the FX 1.0 that doesn't have symbolic calculations as standard.
the A/FX is much faster than the CFX because it does not use colors (it has to draw each color, taking ~3x as long). Plus the A/FX can use add-ins
its faster in all ways, but i think its most visible in the graphing. and yes, it is fully compatible with the CFX, except for Color.
The opposite is true. The CFX is usually faster than the afx.
Just to be sure I changed the batteries and still got the same result: The CFX is faster.
Sergei: are you sure about those figures? its a well known fact that the CFX is much slower than the AFX for graphing
Yes, I have rechecked these tests.
And also have make another test (not depended on complex formula)
For 1-> A to 10: Graph Y = .2: Cls : Next
fx-7000G - 17.8 sec
CFX-9850G - 13.3 sec
AFX 2.0 Plus - 12.5 sec
So, math in the 9850G is faster, but graphs draw is slower than AFX 2.0+
I repeated this test on a 9850GC+ and an Afx2+ and got almost identical times
as Sergei's results for the 9850G vs Afx2+.
However I don't agree that the Afx 2 is faster for Graphing.
If you change it to Graph Y = sin X then the CFX is again faster than the AFX.
does any one know if cfx 9970 is symbolic
...
one of the CFX's is symbolic, but its a very bad CAS system (kinda like the beta for the the AFX CAS)
Yes, the 9970 is symbolic but it does not have as good a CAS as the Algebra FX 2.0.
you can always try the AFX1.0
There was never any such model.
There was the FX 1.0 or the AFX 2.0
#32
Posted 21 December 2006 - 12:09 AM
![:D](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png)
#33
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 21 December 2006 - 05:17 AM
For 1-> A to 10: Graph Y = .2: Cls : Next
#34
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 21 December 2006 - 05:40 AM
There may be differences in as far as bug fixes or power ratings are concerned, but I don't know.
Both are strange calculators: the fx-7000G and fx-7000GA really has differences (less power, another display), but fx-7000G and fx-7200G differs in keyboard colors only (white vs gray).
#35
Posted 21 December 2006 - 06:04 AM
kucalc, may you calculate time of this test (on the fx-9860G)?
For 1-> A to 10: Graph Y = .2: Cls : Next
Hello Sergei Frolov!
![:D](/dot/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png)
I set the ViewWindow to its initial settings: Xmin=-6.3, Xmax=6.3, scale=1, dot=0.1, etc...
#36
Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
Posted 21 December 2006 - 06:28 PM
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users