# HP Forums

Full Version: HP 12C Speed Test
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I'm wondering how much the computation speed difference between HP 12C App for Android with Samsung S7 and Physical HP 12C+ by using this simple loop program.
The CPU speed is a lot difference between these two and let see how much difference.

01 ENTER
02 ENTER
03 +
04 GTO 03

1 ENTER 1 ENTER R/S for 1 minute R/S

Add two numbers 1+1 for 1 minute and compare the grand total result.

12C on Android 15796078 per 1 second = 263268
12C+ 75637 per 1 second = 1261

Gamo
One more test comparison this time using shorter loop program.

01 +
02 GTO 01

Test: 1 ENTER ENTER ENTER R/S run for 1 minute R/S

1+1+1+ .. .......... +1 for 1 minute

Approximate Result

12C+ 79029 -------> 1317 per second
12C App 12491137 ---> 208186 per second

Gamo
side note: I would test something more intensive (savage benchmark maybe?) because basic operations may be quite optimized, while others are less. (common, but not so trivial. So trigonomery, exponentiation)
Hello pier4r

I did try this on more sophisticate program like finding the Prime Factor still both version speed are much difference even though the 12+ is a Emulated version versus the App.

Gamo
(08-22-2017 01:19 PM)Gamo Wrote: [ -> ]One more test comparison this time using shorter loop program.

01 +
02 GTO 01

Test: 1 ENTER 1 ENTER 1 ENTER R/S

Simply 1 [ENTER] [ENTER] [ENTER] [R/S]. ;-)

(08-22-2017 01:19 PM)Gamo Wrote: [ -> ]Approximate Result

12C+ 79029 -------> 1317 per second
12C App 12491137 ---> 208186 per second

Now compare this with a classic original hardware 12C.
What do you get? 10?

Dieter
(08-23-2017 07:29 PM)Dieter Wrote: [ -> ]Now compare this with a classic original hardware 12C.
What do you get? 10?

Here are some results, using the same 2-liner, from past testing:

1985 12C: 499
1992 12C: 518
2003 12C (1x2032): 511
Early (silver, no undo) 12CP: 3150
Later (silver, w/ undo) 12CP: 1424
25th Ann 12CP: 1446
30th Ann 12C: 72,684
HP-25C: 535

Nothing surprising, though the slowdown in the 2nd-gen 12CP is interesting.
(08-23-2017 08:18 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2017 07:29 PM)Dieter Wrote: [ -> ]Now compare this with a classic original hardware 12C.
What do you get? 10?

Here are some results, using the same 2-liner, from past testing:

1985 12C: 499
1992 12C: 518
2003 12C (1x2032): 511

I suppose this is per minute. So that's about 8...9 per second.

(08-23-2017 08:18 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ]Early (silver, no undo) 12CP: 3150
Later (silver, w/ undo) 12CP: 1424
25th Ann 12CP: 1446
30th Ann 12C: 72,684

Interesting.
Especially the anniversary version.

(08-23-2017 08:18 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ]HP-25C: 535

The 34C probably was not much faster. That's why I was impressed with the speed of the 41C when I eventually got one. ;-)

Dieter
(08-23-2017 08:18 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ]Here are some results, using the same 2-liner, from past testing:

Early (silver, no undo) 12CP: 3150
Later (silver, w/ undo) 12CP: 1424

Nothing surprising, though the slowdown in the 2nd-gen 12CP is interesting.

Gene: UNDO has some overhead for the functions it applies to it seems.
(08-23-2017 09:00 PM)Dieter Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose this is per minute. So that's about 8...9 per second.

Dieter

Yes, so your guess was quite good. Meant to say that when I posted, but clearly forgot.

(08-23-2017 09:02 PM)Gene Wrote: [ -> ]Gene: UNDO has some overhead for the functions it applies to it seems.

My thinking too, which is why I quoted 'w/ undo' to describe. This may have been before Cyrille was involved, but we'll ask at HHC if we speak with him. It makes sense there would be some overhead, but half as fast seems like a lot of overhead....
Reference URL's
• HP Forums: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/index.php
• :