# Calculators Speed Comparison

38 replies to this topic

### #1 Guest_Sergei Frolov_*

Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
• Guests

Posted 16 March 2008 - 10:39 AM

I have checked speed of some of programmable calculators on the time expensive power function.

There is number 1.0000001 which placed to memory registers A and B, and for its 27 times are necessary:
- Compute A = A * A
- Compute B = B ^ 2.01
Repeat above test 10 times.

Basic language program:
```5 FOR I=1 TO 10
10 A=1.0000001:B=A
15 FOR J=1 TO 27
20 A=A*A
25 B=B^2.01
30 NEXT J
35 NEXT I
40 PRINT A;B;
45 BEEP```

Casio graphics calculators language:
```10->D
Lbl 2
1.0000001->A
A->B
27->I
Lbl 1
A*A->A
B^2.01->B
Dsz I:Goto 1
Dsz J:Goto 2
"A=":A,
"B=":B,```

I have placed the article there: http://www.leningrad...c/speed_eng.php

Result table with speed comparison:

### #2 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:32 PM

Hello Sergei,

FX-4500PA: 159 sec
TI-95: 114 sec
HP-28S: 29.5sec

### #3 Guest_Sergei Frolov_*

Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
• Guests

Posted 16 March 2008 - 05:38 PM

Thanks.
May you place a listing of your program for fx-3900PV?

### #4 Guest_HP_freak_*

Guest_HP_freak_*
• Guests

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:05 PM

Hello:

Just wanna add two faster programs for the HP49g+/HP50g to your speed-comparation

User-RPL (t:3.18 secs)

```<< 1. 10.
FOR k 1.0000001 DUP 1. 27.
FOR j SWAP DUP * SWAP 2.01 ^
NEXT k 10.  < { DROP2 } IFT
NEXT
>>```
System-RPL (t:2.24 secs.)

```"
::
BINT11 ONE_DO
%1.0000001 DUP
BINT28 ONE_DO
SWAP DUP %*
SWAP %2.01 %^
LOOP
ISTOP-INDEX
#>1 IT 2DROP
LOOP
;
@
"```
All timings measured with the command TEVAL on the real machine.

Just my 2 cents.

### #5 Guest_Sergei Frolov_*

Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
• Guests

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:10 PM

Thank you for the test. However, your test is optimized and not used calculator memory registers (which eat some machine time).
Unlike other tests which can be found in the Internet, I tried to make their as much as possible identical, without use of any improvements to lay down calculators in the most identical conditions for calculations.

### #6 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2008 - 08:42 PM

```P1:

AC

1.0000001 Kin1 Kin2

27 Min

P2:

Kout1 * Kout1 = Kin1

Kout2 x^y 2.01 = Kin2

1 M- MR x>0```

### #7 Guest_HP_freak_*

Guest_HP_freak_*
• Guests

Posted 16 March 2008 - 08:50 PM

OK

Please, consider another result: (with your RPN code)

HP48-GX: 16.60 secs.

On my old HP-49 (blue model), my result is similar to yours.
HP-48GX is sometimes faster in number cruching than the hp49g (in approx mode ),
maybe due to the new integer objet type for CAS operations

Hope the list keeps growing.

### #8 DrCoyote

DrCoyote

Casio Freak

• Members
• 156 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Cleveland, Ohio USA

• Calculators:
CFX-9850GB PLUS, FX-9860G, TI 92+, TI89 Titanium, TI-Nspire, TI-Nspire CAS, TI 84+ SE, HP 50G, HP 35S, Elektronika MK-90, Elektronika MK-52, Elektronika MK-61, Elektronika B3-21, Elektronika MK-152, Elektronika MK-161, Sharp EL-9900

Posted 17 March 2008 - 05:27 AM

I -need- an MK-152!

### #9 Guest_Sergei Frolov_*

Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
• Guests

Posted 17 March 2008 - 05:33 AM

```<<
1 10 FOR X 1.0000001 'A'
STO A 'B' STO 1 27 FOR Y
A DUP * 'A' STO B 2.01 ^
'B' STO NEXT NEXT A B
>>```

You may see more codes on the Russian version: http://www.leningrad.su/calc/speed.php

I -need- an MK-152!

The MK-152 is for sale with price near \$165.
You may contact factory at http://www.semico.ru or use software translations

### #10 verena

verena

Casio Fan

• Members
• 41 posts
• Gender:Female
• Location:Tashkent

• Calculators:
Casio ƒx-10 ~ ƒx-991ES

Posted 19 March 2008 - 04:47 AM

Casio ?x-3600P
```P1:
KAC Min

P2:
Kout1  Kin*1
Kout2  x[sup]y[/sup]  2.01  =  Kin2
1  M-  x<=M
1.0000001 Kin1 Kin2
27 Min
1 Kin-3 Kout3 x>0
10 Kin3
ENT
x>0```
Useage: Run P1, then P2. When "10 ENT P2" appears, "RUN" and start timing, or enter zero to leave the program.

Casio fx-3600P - 217 seconds

Edited by verena, 19 March 2008 - 12:51 PM.

### #11 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2008 - 12:53 PM

Nice solution. On the FX-3900PV it takes 56.0 seconds.

### #12 verena

verena

Casio Fan

• Members
• 41 posts
• Gender:Female
• Location:Tashkent

• Calculators:
Casio ƒx-10 ~ ƒx-991ES

Posted 21 March 2008 - 02:51 AM

Nice solution. On the FX-3900PV it takes 56.0 seconds.

Thank you, Xerxes.
Сергей, please remove the two stars ** and the comment about "this Casio only capable of one loop" from your web page, thank you.
And here are the results of my slowest programmable calculator:
Casio fx-201P
```0 = K10: ST# 1: 1 = K1.0000001: 2 = 1: 3 = K0:
ST# 2: 1 = 1 * 1: 2 = 2 x^y K2.01: 3 = 3 + K1: IF 3 = K27: 2: 3: 3:
ST# 3: 0 = 0 - K1: IF 0 = K0: 4: 4: 1: ST# 4: ANS 1: 2:```
It takes 10 minutes and 31 seconds = 631 seconds before displaying ANS 1 = 674432.8206 and ANS 2 = 3070869.6

### #13 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 21 March 2008 - 01:48 PM

A better two stars comment would be: "this Casio only capable of one label"

Verena, are you interested in a more challenging problem for the FX-201P?

### #14 verena

verena

Casio Fan

• Members
• 41 posts
• Gender:Female
• Location:Tashkent

• Calculators:
Casio ƒx-10 ~ ƒx-991ES

Posted 22 March 2008 - 12:44 AM

I think "cycle" means "loop", not "label". The fx-3600P doesn't have labels. Anyway, the entire program (double loop) fits in an fx-3600P, that's why I requested the correction from Sergei.

Re: a "more challenging problem" - you know, nothing is a problem for the powerful Casio fx-201 with its 127 steps of program memory and extensive portfolio of transcendental, numerical and logical functions, as long as it doesn't have to work for more than 8 hours, the batteries will be empty and I don't have an AC adapter. Bring it on !

### #15 Guest_Sergei Frolov_*

Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
• Guests

Posted 22 March 2008 - 06:37 AM

Thank you. I have updated article.

### #16 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2008 - 03:31 PM

I think "cycle" means "loop", not "label". The fx-3600P doesn't have labels. Anyway, the entire program (double loop) fits in an fx-3600P, that's why I requested the correction from Sergei.

Yes, of course you are right with the lack of labels. What I meant was that there
is only one "pseudo label" at the beginning of each programm area that makes it a
bit tricky to have nested loops. Sorry for the unclear statement.

Re: a "more challenging problem" - you know, nothing is a problem for the powerful Casio fx-201 with its 127 steps of program memory and extensive portfolio of transcendental, numerical and logical functions, as long as it doesn't have to work for more than 8 hours, the batteries will be empty and I don't have an AC adapter. Bring it on !

I have used the n-queens problem to test the speed of programmable calculators
and pocket computers. It's a test for the basic programming elements and not a
mathematical test. It's an iterative backtracking algorithm.

This is the version for the FX-4500P:

```Mcl
Fixm
R=8  (8 queens)
Lbl 0
X=R=>Goto 4_
X=X+1
A[X]=R
Lbl 1
S=S+1
Y=X
Lbl 2
Y=Y-1
Y=0=>Goto 0_
T=A[X]-A[Y]
T=0=>Goto 3_
X-Y<>Abs T=>Goto 2_
Lbl 3
A[X]=A[X]-1
Ans<>0=>Goto 1_
X=X-1
X<>0=>Goto 3_
Lbl 4
S```

And this is my first try to translate the algorithm to the
unusual language of the FX-201P:

```MAC
ST#0: IF 0=K6:5:4:4:  (6 queens)
ST#5: 0=0+K1:
I=0:
IM=K6:  (6 queens)
ST#1: 8=8+K1:
9=0:
ST#2: 9=9-K1:
IF 9=K0:0:0:6:
ST#6: I=0:
7=IM:
I=9:
7=7-IM:
IF 7=K0:7:3:8:
ST#7: 7=7+/-:
ST#8: 7=7+9-0:
IF 7=K0:2:3:2
ST#3: I=0:
IM=IM-K1:
IF IM=K0:1:9:1:
ST#9: 0=0-K1:
IF 0=K0:3:4:3:
ST#4: Ans8:```

This version is for 6 queens because the FX-201P dosn't have enough variables.
If the program works correctly the output has to be 171 nodes.
For testing the correctness of the program on very slow calculators, I use 4 queens
with 26 nodes.

Does the program fit in to the 127 steps? If no, have you any suggestions to
make it possible? If it works, can you please measure the execution speed for 6 queens?
I guess it will take about 20-40 minutes.

Please let me know, if you need more information or have a look at the link
in my signature. Thank you.

### #17 verena

verena

Casio Fan

• Members
• 41 posts
• Gender:Female
• Location:Tashkent

• Calculators:
Casio ƒx-10 ~ ƒx-991ES

Posted 22 March 2008 - 05:18 PM

Does the program fit in to the 127 steps?

No, too big, I stopped counting at 140 at about 6 to 8 lines before the end. Each IF with a K takes at least 12 steps, labels take 3 steps...

If no, have you any suggestions to make it possible? If it works, can you please measure the execution speed for 6 queens?

I'll try to figure out how it works, program it if possible, or not, and let you know. Could be a couple weeks.

Edit - I know the rules for chess, but what are the "nodes" you are talking about ? "S" in the fx-4500P listing ? And, I'm getting quite pessimistic about getting your n-queens problem in the fx-201P...

Sergei, in your table please correct the times for the fx-3600P = 217 seconds, and fx-201P = 631 seconds, thank you.

### #18 Guest_Sergei Frolov_*

Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
• Guests

Posted 22 March 2008 - 07:40 PM

Done

### #19 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2008 - 07:38 PM

No, too big, I stopped counting at 140 at about 6 to 8 lines before the end. Each IF with a K takes at least 12 steps, labels take 3 steps...

I cannot understand why Casio used such a wasteful language in a calculator with only 127 steps.
The same program on a FX-502P/602P/603P needs only 48 steps and btw 143 on the FX-4500P.

I know the rules for chess, but what are the "nodes" you are talking about ? "S" in the fx-4500P listing ?

The nodes in the backtracking search tree.

And, I'm getting quite pessimistic about getting your n-queens problem in the fx-201P...

I guess it's almost impossible unfortunately. Can you please run this test instead?

```MAC
ST#0:
0=0+K1
IF 0=K0:0:0:0```
What is the content of M0, if you interrupt the execution after 60 seconds?

Thank you.

### #20 verena

verena

Casio Fan

• Members
• 41 posts
• Gender:Female
• Location:Tashkent

• Calculators:
Casio ƒx-10 ~ ƒx-991ES

Posted 31 March 2008 - 03:00 AM

Xerxes,
Good news, I managed to get the 6-queen problem in 126 steps and the fx-201P takes 7 minutes and 38 seconds to solve it.
There was no space keft for a node counter but I'm sure it did 171 as I parallel developed the algorithm on an fx-7000G.
And the results are right too, ANS1-ANS6 being 5, 3, 1, 6, 4, 2.

Edit: It is possible to do your web page's 8-queen problem as well on the fx-201P, I'll keep you updated. runtime is around 54 minutes.

Note on the side, how easy the fx-7000G is to program compared to the modern graph Casios - all commands right at your fingertips, no OPTN menus to wade through, etc.

Edited by verena, 03 April 2008 - 04:27 AM.

### #21 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 01 April 2008 - 10:45 AM

I'm really impressed! Thanks for your effort.

Yes, in fact the early CASIOs with formula programming are more practical
in some cases.

### #22 DrCoyote

DrCoyote

Casio Freak

• Members
• 156 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Cleveland, Ohio USA

• Calculators:
CFX-9850GB PLUS, FX-9860G, TI 92+, TI89 Titanium, TI-Nspire, TI-Nspire CAS, TI 84+ SE, HP 50G, HP 35S, Elektronika MK-90, Elektronika MK-52, Elektronika MK-61, Elektronika B3-21, Elektronika MK-152, Elektronika MK-161, Sharp EL-9900

Posted 17 April 2008 - 01:28 PM

I had a difficult time measuring the results on my TI-Nspire CAS. Like the FX-9860G, the time is very short. After averaging several runs, I get approximately 2.1 seconds.

To facilitate measuring run time a bit better, I added another loop to run the whole algorithm 10 times. With that set-up, I got run times of about 18.5 seconds. At first glance, this might seem like a speed of 1.85 seconds, but that did not, obviously, include time for whatever housekeeping goes on before running a program.

Oh, and I have a Durabrand 828 graphing calculator. It is the early version, and it takes 95.6 seconds to run the program.

### #23 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 19 April 2008 - 02:57 PM

Oh, and I have a Durabrand 828 graphing calculator. It is the early version, and it takes 95.6 seconds to run the program.

Do you know, if there is a speed difference between the old HW828 or new HW1376 version?

### #24 DrCoyote

DrCoyote

Casio Freak

• Members
• 156 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Cleveland, Ohio USA

• Calculators:
CFX-9850GB PLUS, FX-9860G, TI 92+, TI89 Titanium, TI-Nspire, TI-Nspire CAS, TI 84+ SE, HP 50G, HP 35S, Elektronika MK-90, Elektronika MK-52, Elektronika MK-61, Elektronika B3-21, Elektronika MK-152, Elektronika MK-161, Sharp EL-9900

Posted 21 April 2008 - 05:44 AM

I don't. I have been curious to find out, but I don't have the newer (HW1376) version yet.

### #25 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 21 April 2008 - 11:51 AM

I've got the result for the n-queens bench of the HW1376 version already from another forum,
tested with 92 seconds. If you want to test your calculator, you will find the Durabrand 828
version in the benchmark too.

### #26 ha1313424234

ha1313424234

Newbie

• Members
• 4 posts

• Calculators:
fx-50f fx-3800p fx-3650p

Posted 08 May 2008 - 12:51 PM

i've just tested my two calculator:
fx-50f : 240 sec
fx-3800p: 223 sec
fx-3800p is older than fx-50f but it is a bit faster than 50f
last time i replaced the battery for fx-50f and find out it didn't have a pcb. there's just a very small ic -- silver colour, around 0.5mm^2 in size -- right below the solar panel. it has rubberized keys. fx-50f only provides 29 programming steps, so i think that's why it doesn't have a pcb. that tiny IC is the only electronic component of it! The manufacturing cost must be very low!
ooh, my calculators are the slowest!

### #27 Guest_Sergei Frolov_*

Guest_Sergei Frolov_*
• Guests

Posted 08 May 2008 - 05:49 PM

Thank you, updated.

### #28 ha1313424234

ha1313424234

Newbie

• Members
• 4 posts

• Calculators:
fx-50f fx-3800p fx-3650p

Posted 17 June 2008 - 07:09 AM

there is an interesting phenomenon of my calculators: fx-3800p perform x^y or x^(1/y) a bit slower than fx-50f, but it performs trigo function sin, cos , tan two times faster fx-50f. does it mean calculator also has 'weakpoint' and 'speciality' on some specific function?

### #29 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 18 June 2008 - 12:37 PM

I would say yes in general, because it also depends on the algorithm used to compute
the mathematical functions.

If you are interested in a speed test independently from the mathematical functions, try this:
```-  355  FX-180P	  Kout 1 + 1 = Kin 1 Kout 1 x>0
-  360  FX-3600P	 Kout 1 + 1 = Kin 1 Kout 1 x>0
-  825  FX-3650P	 Lbl 0 A+1->A A>0=>Goto 0
- 2810  FX-3900Pv	Kout 1 + 1 = Kin 1 Kout 1 x>0```
Store zero in K1 or A and start the program. Interrupt the execution exactly after 1 minute
and recall K1 or A. I guess the speed of FX-50F is similar to the FX-180P or FX-3600P, but
I'm not sure about the FX-3800P.

### #30 McCoy

McCoy

• Members
• 68 posts
• Interests:play around with figures.

• Calculators:
CFX - 9850 GB PLUS,Classpad 330, TI-89 Titanium.

Posted 29 June 2008 - 01:10 AM

Acoording to this comparison shown on that link, does it mean that ti93 is faster than both ti89 and classpad?

### #31 DrCoyote

DrCoyote

Casio Freak

• Members
• 156 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Cleveland, Ohio USA

• Calculators:
CFX-9850GB PLUS, FX-9860G, TI 92+, TI89 Titanium, TI-Nspire, TI-Nspire CAS, TI 84+ SE, HP 50G, HP 35S, Elektronika MK-90, Elektronika MK-52, Elektronika MK-61, Elektronika B3-21, Elektronika MK-152, Elektronika MK-161, Sharp EL-9900

Posted 09 July 2008 - 07:41 PM

I have checked speed of some of programmable calculators on the time expensive power function.

My HP 35s runs it in about 47 seconds in RPN mode. This seems odd, as you get 27.8 seconds on the 33s. I'll have to check it out on my 33s, as I find it hard to believe that the 33s is that much faster.

Could you please share the code you used on the 33s, Sergei?

### #32 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2008 - 09:15 PM

@McCoy:

The speed of the TI calculators with 68000 inside (TI-89/92/V200) is almost the same.
The HW1 models are a bit slower and the HW3 models are usually slightly faster compared
to the widespeaded HW2 models.

The reason for the difference of the TI-92 and the TI-89 in Sergei's test maybe caused
by different mode(Auto/Exact/Approx) settings.

@DrCoyote:

I have made some tests on the 33S and 35S and I can confirm the higher speed of the 33S.
For example in the n-queens test the 33S needs 2:11 but the 35S 4:17 although I have already
optimized the 35S code by avoiding constants in loops because these are very slow on the 35S.

The Hardware of both calculators is the same (6502 core @ 4-5 MHz), but the 35S has a much
more complex system and a new but slower keystroke programming language.

The HW828 version of the Durabrand 828 is a clon of the Citizen SRP-320G.

### #33 DrCoyote

DrCoyote

Casio Freak

• Members
• 156 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Cleveland, Ohio USA

• Calculators:
CFX-9850GB PLUS, FX-9860G, TI 92+, TI89 Titanium, TI-Nspire, TI-Nspire CAS, TI 84+ SE, HP 50G, HP 35S, Elektronika MK-90, Elektronika MK-52, Elektronika MK-61, Elektronika B3-21, Elektronika MK-152, Elektronika MK-161, Sharp EL-9900

Posted 14 July 2008 - 04:02 PM

I borrowed a Datexx DS-883 from a friend. It's a pleasant little machine, if a bit wierd. Anyway, Sergei, it runs your benchmark in 51.2 seconds.

...And the TRS-80 Pocket Computer 2 (Sharp PC-1500) runs the benchmark in 59.6 seconds.

A Radio Shack Pocket Computer 1 (Sharp PC 1211) takes 272 seconds.

A Sharp EL-9200C does it in 27.1 seconds.

The Corner Office ATC-139 runs the benchmark in 29.8 seconds.

### #34 Leszek

Leszek

Newbie

• Members
• 6 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Poland

• Calculators:
CASIO fx-CP400, CASIO fx-CG50, HP Prime, TI-Nspire CX II-T CAS

Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:53 PM

If you are interested in a speed test independently from the mathematical functions, try this:

```-  355  FX-180P	  Kout 1 + 1 = Kin 1 Kout 1 x>0
-  360  FX-3600P	 Kout 1 + 1 = Kin 1 Kout 1 x>0
-  825  FX-3650P	 Lbl 0 A+1->A A>0=>Goto 0
- 2810  FX-3900Pv	Kout 1 + 1 = Kin 1 Kout 1 x>0```
Store zero in K1 or A and start the program. Interrupt the execution exactly after 1 minute
and recall K1 or A.

I've tested it on my CASIO fx-4800P.
The result is: 3969

Leszek

### #35 Leszek

Leszek

Newbie

• Members
• 6 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Poland

• Calculators:
CASIO fx-CP400, CASIO fx-CG50, HP Prime, TI-Nspire CX II-T CAS

Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:01 PM

</SPAN></FONT>

Hi Siergiej,

Thanks a lot for such a big speed
comparision. It is very useful.

I have a CASIO fx-4800P and I didn't notice
it in your table. It's my code:

===========================================================
I=10:Lbl 1:A=1.0000001:B=A:J=27:Lbl
2:A=AÂ´A:B=B^2.01:Dsz J:Goto 2:Dsz I:Goto
1
A
B
===========================================================

And time is: 17,2 s

It's interesting, because it's much better
time than newer and richer CASIO fx-5800P.

A = 674 529,1097
B = 4 669 408,348

### #36 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 05 April 2009 - 12:55 PM

Hi Leszek,

thanks for testing, but the FX-4800P is already present in the n-queens benchmark. I have used the simple but less accurate test above only in case of lack of indirect addressing.
The FX-4800P and FX-4850P are also faster than the FX-5800P using this test.

### #37 Guest_Bangonkali_*

Guest_Bangonkali_*
• Guests

Posted 10 February 2010 - 06:29 PM

Hi Leszek,

thanks for testing, but the FX-4800P is already present in the n-queens benchmark. I have used the simple but less accurate test above only in case of lack of indirect addressing.
The FX-4800P and FX-4850P are also faster than the FX-5800P using this test.

i'm kind of new here. i would like to ask how i can input 'dsz' in fx 4500 pa?

### #38 bangonkali

bangonkali

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:16 AM

```Mcl
Fixm
R=8  (8 queens)
Lbl 0
X=R=>Goto 4_
X=X+1
A[X]=R
Lbl 1
S=S+1
Y=X
Lbl 2
Y=Y-1
Y=0=>Goto 0_
T=A[X]-A[Y]
T=0=>Goto 3_
X-Y<>Abs T=>Goto 2_
Lbl 3
A[X]=A[X]-1
Ans<>0=>Goto 1_
X=X-1
X<>0=>Goto 3_
Lbl 4
S```

hi. im a newbie here. i have Casio 4500PA, i tried the code, but it doesn't seem to work. when i run the program, the output is 8, and it comes out directly, just 8.

### #39 Xerxes

Xerxes

Casio Freak

• Members
• 130 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 11 February 2010 - 03:11 PM

Hi Bangonkali,

The language of the FX-4500P(A) is very close to the FX-4800P/4850P but
there is no DSZ command.

Probably the test code doesn't work, because you haven't used the end sign
at the comparisons ( 2ndF + SQRT ). I've used the underscore in the listing
but its represented as a white triangle in the display.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users