8 replies to this topic

[BHetrick]

I happened to see a Durabrand (a Wal-Mart store brand) "Graphing Scientific Calculator" for $20 today. I looked a little closer, and said to myself, "I recognize that keyboard layout. It's a Casio 7000." After bringing it home, I see it is indeed a rebadged (and newly manufactured) fx-7000G with only minor cosmetic differences, complete with programs P0 through P9, a total of 400 program steps, A[25] being the same as Z, Isz and Dsz instructions, and what not. Who would have ever expected to see the 7000 come back? It's old home week.

[kucalc]

That sounds awesome! Can you post a picture of the calc?

[Martin]

If you mean this:
http://www.rskey.org...h_durabrand.htm
then it is not CASIO 7000 but Citizen SRP-320G

[BHetrick]

Fascinating. It is indeed the Durabrand 828 as reviewed. The Citizen and Casio calculators appear to be quite similar.

[caspro]

Hi Brian, it's always good to find new models.

Martin, I reckon the Citizen is licensed from Casio.

The Citizen and the Durabrand are both like clones of the Casio fx-6300G,
with a small screen which shares both graph and text mode.

A google search for Citizen SRP-320G resulted in another 6300G clone, this time by Assistant:
http://www.leninburg...calc/danger.php

In the UK, I've seen shops selling Texet badged versions like the Assistant version.

They're not absolutely identical to the 6300G though. The screen size is slightly altered.

Looking on Google images, for the 'Citizen SRP-320G', it seems most of the pictures are for
the 'Citizen SRP-320G II' which has a new keyboard layout rather than just a casio clone.

[BHetrick]

Hi, Roy. I'm not sure a 6300 clone counts as a "new model" :-) . I saw the unique screen layout but didn't recognize it: my collection isn't as extensive as yours.

I did try benchmarking the Durabrand against a 7400 with a simple combinatorial counting problem. The Durabrand was about 40% faster (5 min vs. 8 min) than the 7400 on the same code (modulo ":" on the Durabrand for end of line on the 7400). Using the structured constructs (IF, FOR, etc.) instead of the original conditionals (=>, GOTO, etc.) on the 7400 made no difference. I haven't tried the program on my 7000 or 7700 yet.

[caspro]

I've benchmarked the Texet GR4F-x^3 against a cfx-9850GC
on the following program:

1000->X
Lbl 1
Dsz X
"A"

And the 9850 took 3.6s and the texet took about ten times as long at 33.1s

Brian, can you compare the 9850 vs 7400 ?

[kucalc]

I've benchmarked the Texet GR4F-x^3 against a cfx-9850GC
on the following program:

1000->X
Lbl 1
Dsz X
"A"

And the 9850 took 3.6s and the texet took about ten times as long at 33.1s

Brian, can you compare the 9850 vs 7400 ?

Hey caspro! I think you need to add a Goto 1 after Dsx X. So the program looks like:

1000->X
Lbl 1
Dsz X
Goto 1
"A"

Anyways, I tried it out on my fx-7400G Plus. Average timings to execute this program on a fx-7400G is ~3.8 - ~3.9 seconds.

[caspro]

You are right Kucalc, I missed out a Goto 1.

Well then it looks like:
Durabrand is the fastest,
followed by 9850 and 7400 about the same
then texet the slowest.