11 replies to this topic

[frankmar98]

Hello, 

I´ve translated the benchmark code to the fx-3650pII language, and the benchmark is completed in 73 seconds. This calculator is uncapable of execute nested loops, so I´ve programmed 1 loop, and 1 label + 1 conditional + 1 increment + 1 goto to create the other loop.

 

This calculator is very rare in Europe, but I´m in love with it.

 

The code is:

ClrMemory:Lbl 1:1.0000001->A:A->B:For 1->X To 27:AxA->A:B^(2.01)->B:Next:D+1->D:If D<=10:Then Goto 1:IfEnd:A(output triangle)B(output triangle):

Regards from Spain

[frankmar98]

Hello,

I tried the benchmark on my new Casio fx-9750GII, and it takes 3,25s (chronometred with Casio CA-53W calculator watch).

Results:

A=674529.1121

B= 4669416.333

 

Update (to add the code):

10=>J
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(output triangle)
B(output triangle)

Edited by frankmar98, 16 April 2016 - 05:31 PM.

[Forty-Two]

Hi, please don't necropost. If you have something new to say, create a new topic and link to the old one instead.

 

I have split this post off from the original thread.

[Viliami]

Wow, that is a huge gap.  73s vs 3.25s

[frankmar98]

The Casio fx-9750GII, is very powerfull, 

 

I use it to solve Chemical equilibrium equations in class before the professor,

Arrenhius Equations,

And very big linear systems

 

And it does it very fast

 

In the other part, the fx-3650pII, takes so much time to solve definite integrals, but it is a tiny, low-consume and solar programmable calculator

 

Sorry for necropost, since now, I won´t do it.

 

Regards

Edited by frankmar98, 14 April 2016 - 06:22 PM.

[frankmar98]

I ran the test in a fx-9750G (first model) (POWER GRAPHIC, 32KB) I bought it for 3€ (3.4$) in a second-hand market.

 

It takes 13.06 seconds

 

Results:

A=674529.1097

B=4669408.348

 

The results are a bit different (because of the precision)

[frankmar98]

Tested in an ancient TI-81 (Zilog Z80 8 bits @ 2MHz). It is a beautiful machine.

 

18,2 seconds

 

Results:

674530.318

4669329.224

 

I encourage you to benchmark your rare / old calculators, for comparision.

 

Update: to add the code:

10→J
Lbl 2
1.0000001→A
A→B
27→I
Lbl 1
A*A→A
B^2.01->B
DS<(I,1
Goto 1
DS<(J,1
Goto 2
Disp A
Disp B

Edited by frankmar98, 19 August 2016 - 11:33 AM.

[giraffe]

fx-9750G PLUS

A=674529.109665355
B=469408.34751335

Ran it 10 times: 14.00, 13.94, 13.86, 13.95, 13.61, 13.92, 13.77, 13.93, 13.91, 13.92.
The mean was 13.881 s.

edit: newlines

Edited by giraffe, 09 October 2016 - 02:23 AM.

[frankmar98]

Graph 90+E / fx-CG50:

 

(1,5 +/- 1)s

 

Very good speed, it is a 2017 model.

[foroplus]

Nice to see this calculator benchmarking test.

I use other tests, but always am interested in this kind of stuff.

I saw kind of this test first on this page http://www.hpmuseum....hread-1521.html , but they measure only precision, not the time needed (performance).

M

My main text is http://www.thimet.de...erformance.html

Edited by foroplus, 23 May 2018 - 08:04 AM.

[pan.gejt]

Summation based benchmark for calculators 

 

http://www.hpmuseum....ight=comparison

[slugrustle]

Using the code

10➔J:
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◢
B◢

on the fx-5800P, I clocked a 24.4 second runtime and A = 674529.1097, B = 4669415.349.

 

Edit: Takes about 3.2 seconds on an fx-9860GII SD. A = 674529.1121, B = 4669416.333, essentially the same as your results on the fx-9750GII.

Edited by slugrustle, 24 November 2018 - 04:50 PM.