Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Comparison of fx-9750gii/9860gii calculators.

fx-9860gii-2

  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Hlib2

Hlib2

    Casio Addict

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ukraine
  • Interests:industrial electronics,
    graphing calculators

  • Calculators:
    fx-9860gii-2, afx-2.0+
    fx-9750gii, fx-9750g+
    cfx-9850gb+, graph25
    fx-991DE_X, fx-991ES+
    ti-voyage200(emulator)
    ti-83+_SE, ti-85, hp-50g

Posted 19 June 2020 - 09:19 PM

Recently, just for fun, I decided to compare the characteristics of three calculators and chose: 1) fx-9750g plus - the most economical in its class; 2) fx-9750gii (SH3, V.02.00) - they say that this one is very fast because of the well-optimized OS; 3) fx-9860gii (SH4, V.02.09) - equipped with newer firmware and newer processor. All three devices include monochrome LCD 128×64 pxl, very similar and compatible versions of the programming language.
Since the fx-9850gb plus (BE) became my first full-fledged graphical calculator from CASIO in 1998, I have been watching with interest the development of this (or like this) line for about 20 years.
For a more objective assessment of the speed of calculations, I took two different programs. The first of them is the well-known 8-queens benchmark. The code with the List variable was selected as less effective for the fx-9750gii/9860gii.
0➝A~Z:8➝R
R➝Dim List 1
Lbl 0:X=R⇒Goto 4
Isz X:R➝List 1[X]
Lbl 1:Isz S:X➝Y
Lbl 2:Dsz Y Deg
Y=0⇒Goto 0
List 1[X]-List 1[Y]➝T
T=0⇒Goto 3
X-Y≠Abs T⇒Goto 2
Lbl 3:List 1[X]-1➝List 1[X]
List 1[X]⇒Goto 1
Dsz X:Goto 3
Lbl 4:S
The second one solves a fun problem: how many integers (from 1 to 9999) are evenly divisible by the number of letters in their name? First one is 4 (divisible by f-o-u-r (4 letters): 4÷4=1). Last one happens to be 9999 (divisible by n-i-n-e-t-h-o-u-s-a-n-d-n-i-n-e-h-u-n-d-r-e-d-n-i-n-e-t-y-n-i-n-e (33 letters): 9999÷33=303).
[[0,3,3,5,4,4,3,5,5,4]
[3,6,6,8,8,7,7,9,8,8]
[0,0,6,6,5,5,5,7,6,6]]→Mat K
-1→N:0→K
For 1→E To 10:Mat K[1,E]+8(E≠1)→S
For 1→D To 10:Mat K[1,D]+7(D≠1)+S→T
For 1→C To 10:Mat K[3,C]+T→U
(C=2)+1→B
For 1→A To 10:Mat K[B,A]+U→V
N+1→N:V≠0⇒(Frac (N/V)=0)+K→K
Next:Next:Next:Next:"K=":K
spoiler: K=359.
This code contains the operations For...Next and Mat_ , which fx-9750gii/9860gii perform very quickly.
The results are shown in a table from my paper notebook. The measurement and rounding error does not exceed 2%.
30855418_m.jpg
When comparing the results obtained from 9750gii and 9860gii, an unexpected conclusion arises: the speed of the calculator is directly proportional to its power consumption. And if I didn`t know anything about their hardware stuffing, I would say based on these tests: the fx-9750gii is a 56 MHz overclocked fx-9860gii. No special technological advantages of the 9860gii calculator compared to the 9750gii have been observed. A similar proportionality between speed and power is seen when comparing results between fx-9750g plus and 9750gii/9860gii.
Probably, the CPU clock speed can not serve as a true characteristic of the calculator, since the manufacturer also regulates the speed in other ways.
And brief conclusions that I made for myself: 1) such a calculator as 9750g plus is still relevant today; 2) I will not upgrade the 9750gii. Even with the old OS 02.00, it is an excellent calculator; 3) there are no complaints about 9860gii.

Edited by Hlib2, 20 June 2020 - 12:41 PM.


#2 sentaro21

sentaro21

    Casio Technician

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:JAPAN

  • Calculators:
    FX-603P fx-4800P fx-5800P
    CFX-9850GC PLUS
    fx-9860G
    fx-9860GII
    fx-9860GII-2
    fx-9860GII-2 SD
    fx-CG10
    fx-CG20
    fx-CG50
    HP-Prime
    HP 50G
    TI-Nspire CX CAS
    TI-84+CE

Posted 24 June 2020 - 10:37 AM

Hi HliB2,
 
Thanks a lot for the very interesting calculator comparison! :D
I'm very interested in these comparisons.
When I get a new calculator, the first thing I do is benchmark it.
 
I think CASIO does a very good job of ranking their calculators, 
but I didn't like the fact that they deliberately slowed it down when I switched from SH3 to SH4A.
Half power consumption and half speed is useless.
Half the power consumption and double the speed is the right evolution. ^_^





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users