35 replies to this topic

[ivanik]

Lo all.
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?

[CrimsonCasio]

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.

[ivanik]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?

[CrimsonCasio]

well, the FX2.0 is really the AFX with the CAS and Tutor "hidden". you can get to them only if you use a computer to link these programs to the main menu. there is no other way than that to do so.

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)

[octobclrnts]

I think what he said was that you have to hack it to put the symbolic part on.

(yea what he said, I was a little slow)

[ivanik]

Thats nice! Do any of you have any idea how much faster the FX2.0 would be than the CFX9850GB PLUS?

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...

[CrimsonCasio]

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.

[ivanik]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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)?

[CrimsonCasio]

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 )

[ivanik]

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 )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?

[CrimsonCasio]

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.

[Bob Vila]

this is where i got mine http://www.neutronex.../CASIO/FX-1_0 / not a bad price, actually it was cheaper than my cfx

[Bj2c]

does any one know if cfx 9970 is symbolic , i lost my then i get af 2.0 , it looks like the same , but it was not in colors , the i bought a CP , , but i can?t remember if the cfx has tutor and CAS , but it was really fast in G-solve , any idea

[CrimsonCasio]

one of the CFX's is symbolic, but its a very bad CAS system (kinda like the beta for the the AFX CAS)

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)

[CrimsonCasio]

ok, the afx is probably slower in math because of greater percision... thats my guess anyway.

[CrimsonCasio]

*shrug* i dont know... but there must be some reason...

[fiberoptik]

Ivanik, you can always try the AFX1.0, if you can still find one for sale, because it's a rather old model.

Bye

[ivanik]

Could those of you who have other calcs test an integration on your calcs for comparison? My CFX9850GB PLUS uses about 13-14 secs integrating this function with x from 0 to 950.

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.

[ivanik]

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?

[Overlord]

Integral of : 64800/(14175-14.86x) for x=0 to 950
---

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)

[AlephMobius]

I have heard that the TI is much faster than the HP for integration. This is one of the main areas I have heard people point out when discussing TIs and HPs. I do not understand the procedure each calculator uses but I have heard that the TI CAS uses some sort of pregenerated table, while the HP must generate this table. This is supposed to be what slows the HP down when it comes to integration.

EDIT:

I would thing the HP would do alot better atleast what with the 75MHz processor and all

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.

[caspro]

Sergei, regarding the 7000 vs 7200, here's a quote from the rskey calculator museum:
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

[kucalc]

Consider the fx-9860! It's a fast graphing calculator!

[kucalc]

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! OK, I will test your program. Running your program on a fx-9860 takes: ~2.1s - ~2.2s.
I set the ViewWindow to its initial settings: Xmin=-6.3, Xmax=6.3, scale=1, dot=0.1, etc...