20 replies to this topic

[Brazzucko]

Just see this site for a complete speed test between some calc models, including the CASIO AFX 2.0

http://www.cworks.st...au/cascomp.html

[Brazzucko]

I have got the same results whit the CFX 9850GB Plus and the FX1.0, but I add to the test the FX 9750G, and they more faster??

Any one can explain this, because as anyone knows the FX/AFX has a new and faster processor, in comparison whit the CFX, FX 9750G?.

[BiTwhise]

That test is ooold..

The FX9750 has a less complex operating system, and some older models have less digits of precision (the fx8850, or somthn like that, has only 12 or 13 digits of internal precision)
Tests using screen output don't give a fair result when considering computional efficiency. The cfx series have their colour screen, which makes for slower graphical display, and the afx have their awkward screen buffer thing, that makes text mode slower..

When testing graphing, you also have to consider the resolution of the screen.. which this test says nothing about .. (ti83 have somethinge like 96 horizontal pixels)

Also, the test don't include any of the calculator "big boys", like ti89 (and above), and the hp49g..

And, btw, who says the afx/fx has a new faster cpu?
the old hitachi could emulate any size arithmetic, if I'm not wrong
you say "as anyone knows, the FX/AFX has a new and faster processor".., that must be everyone but me then so, would you care do elaborate?

[Brazzucko]

You are right I only put this here for everyone sees that, and comment??.

Of course the FX/AFX ( for me ) is the better calc available??

When I said new processor, I mean a better processor in comparison whit the CFX and FX 9750G?

I don?t remember who, but in the AFX software on the FX some one says that the BASIC programs uses the CPU at full speed, so it?s supposed to the Basic programs runs at much more speed in the FX/AFX comparison whit the ?old? models?..

[BiTwhise]

When I said new processor, I mean a better processor in comparison whit the CFX and FX 9750G?

no need to repeat yourself

I'm only asking, who says the processor is faster.. where have you heard that?

[Brazzucko]

Here on this forum.....

FX/AFX 8Mhz

CFX 6Mhz

Now i don't know if is true or not!!!!!

[BiTwhise]

But it's not the same cpu.. you can't compare like that..

Also, you would have to know the speed of the timer that triggers the hardware int (to get an idea of the efficiency of the cpu, how many clock cycles are "wasted" on operating system stuff)

[Bob Vila]

thought cfx was 6.6 mhz maybe i'm wrong

[Exca]

The processor in afx is faster than in cfx, it's just that the programmers at casio have been lazy and made things the easy way

Atleast that's what I've heard on this forum

[rjstephens]

here's what i thought:

CFX: 8mhz Hitachi CPU
AFX: 16mhz i286 intel CPU

(they're probably wrong)

[Brazzucko]

Ok cooll...

But anyway what is the differences.......

[Brazzucko]

What is the best.....

[rjstephens]

if i had a choice, i would get afx. but afx are very difficult to find in australia. i have found one store that sells them, but they won't deliver (from melboune, about 2000k away)

AFX are better because of the flash RAM

[Brazzucko]

Only the Flash RAM?.

Come on this is not the only reason to by that calculator??

They are GREAT???

For School and of course games, if I?m not wrong this is the best CASIO calc for games?..

And don?t forget you can customize this calc??

[BiTwhise]

Not to mention the non-colour screen.. this is a major plus. colour screen was a flop. they offer terrible contrast, flimmer, drains battery, and slows down graphic mode routines!

Obviously, the afx/g100/fx1 has the algebra and cas programs which are nice on maths exams

The extra memory is also a good advantage when working with lists, and matrixes (or games )

[Brazzucko]

In the day that the casio calcs comes whit a colour LCD like the notebooks, they will be GREAT?..

They only don?t do that because the calc will be EXTREMILY expensive?.

[BiTwhise]

Expensive is one thing,

Keep in mind that a calculator is designed to run on the same batteries for months.. you can't spec it up with all sorts of nice features, it would no longer be calc.. for that you buy a pda

[rjstephens]

heh i want my pocket pc

i' think about killing for one of those

being able to watch thos movies and listen to those MP3s

and recognising my messy handwriting.

A calc probably could have a TFT (laptop-style) screen but bitwise is right, it would last all of 10 hours on 4 AAA batterys, if your lucky.

[Brazzucko]

It's a nice option.... but expensive.....

[rjstephens]

big TFTs cost a lot, but a small one would increase the calcs cost by AU$100 max.

Pocket PCs are so expensive, and so hard to justify the cost, because of their fast chips and incredibly small size. I have seen TFT screens the size of a pocket PC TFT screen that are bigger than a Pocket PC.

I would go for palm, but it has almost no software (when compared with PPC) no multimedia and no decent handwriting recognition.

[Brazzucko]

Yeahh but one day they will be very cheap...