08-26-2018, 07:44 PM

08-26-2018, 10:15 PM

Casio fx-4000P

n=1000

t~388s

Result=1395.346288

I used this Dsz loop program which prompts for the number of iterations. The stopwatch was started when the number of iterations was entered at the prompt, '?':

n=1000

t~388s

Result=1395.346288

I used this Dsz loop program which prompts for the number of iterations. The stopwatch was started when the number of iterations was entered at the prompt, '?':

Code:

`Rad : ? → A : 0 : Lbl 1 : Ans + ∛ e sin tan⁻¹ A : Dsz A : Goto 1`

08-28-2018, 07:51 PM

Updated until post #122. If someone finds missing results, please report them!

Also some versioning is here: http://www.wiki4hp.com/doku.php?id=bench...g_exp_root

Also some versioning is here: http://www.wiki4hp.com/doku.php?id=bench...g_exp_root

08-28-2018, 08:21 PM

Results from a Casio fx-720P with this program:

~4 sec. to produce 13.7118350167 for X=1 to 10

~43 sec. to produce 139.297187038 for X=1 to 100

Code:

`10 T=0`

20 FOR X=1 TO 10:T=T+( EXP SIN ATNX)^(1/3): NEXT X

30 PRINT X

~4 sec. to produce 13.7118350167 for X=1 to 10

~43 sec. to produce 139.297187038 for X=1 to 100

08-28-2018, 08:21 PM

I have written a Savage benchmark for the Prime, which provides results for both approximate and exact (CAS) mode.

But I use an Android emulator and have no hardware to time results on.

http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-9626.html

Update: Anders has reported timings for Prime C and Prime G2 here:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-11202-page-3.html

But I use an Android emulator and have no hardware to time results on.

http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-9626.html

Update: Anders has reported timings for Prime C and Prime G2 here:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-11202-page-3.html

08-28-2018, 09:28 PM

HP-27S

n=1000

t∼120s

Result=1395.3462877

Surprisingly fast compared to HP-42S.

(I originally used 'INV(3)' instead of '.333333333333', but it was slower due to the extra function overhead. The calculator has no cube root or nth root function.)

n=1000

t∼120s

Result=1395.3462877

Code:

`BENCH=Σ(X:1:1000:1:EXP(SIN(ATAN(X)))^.333333333333)`

Surprisingly fast compared to HP-42S.

(I originally used 'INV(3)' instead of '.333333333333', but it was slower due to the extra function overhead. The calculator has no cube root or nth root function.)

08-29-2018, 04:19 AM

PrimeG2: ~7.22_s with run of 10 average.

SUM function, 100000

SUM function, 100000

08-29-2018, 06:17 AM

Wow, before it was 19 seconds . Is the g2 version optimized or is it clocked at 800+ MHz?

The thingy starts to be golden in term of power expressiveness of HP ppl.

It is faster than an iPhone and that's not trivial to achieve.

I still have to put the results on the first page though.

The thingy starts to be golden in term of power expressiveness of HP ppl.

It is faster than an iPhone and that's not trivial to achieve.

I still have to put the results on the first page though.

08-31-2018, 07:53 PM

Updated up to post #127

09-05-2018, 05:36 AM

Casio fx-92+ Spéciale Collège

n=1000

t~163 s.

result=1395,346288

0->A

0->B

Répétez jusqu'a A=1000

A+1->A

B+3V(e^(sin(Arcttan(A))))->B

<-

Afficher résult B

Gene: Translation below from Google.

Casio fx-92 + Special College

n = 1000

t ~ 163 s.

result = 1395.346288

0-> A

0-> B

Repeat until A = 1000

A + 1> A

B + 3V (e ^ (sin (Arcttan (A)))) -> B

<-

Show result B

n=1000

t~163 s.

result=1395,346288

0->A

0->B

Répétez jusqu'a A=1000

A+1->A

B+3V(e^(sin(Arcttan(A))))->B

<-

Afficher résult B

Gene: Translation below from Google.

Casio fx-92 + Special College

n = 1000

t ~ 163 s.

result = 1395.346288

0-> A

0-> B

Repeat until A = 1000

A + 1> A

B + 3V (e ^ (sin (Arcttan (A)))) -> B

<-

Show result B

09-05-2018, 10:34 AM

Regarding the original summation test, I decided to feed it through my copy of x48-0.6.4. I got some slightly strange results, which seem to be dependent upon the machine that x48's running on, so I'm interested in knowing if anyone's done the test on a real 48SX, as I haven't seen one in pier4r's list of results. My program's below, but it's pretty much the sum from 1 to n for the original formula.

Oh, and I finally managed to find a PDF manual for the SX; as most of you know, there are quite a few differences between the SX and GX and they were doing my head in. I still don't know how to do certain things I take for granted on my 50G, but things are considerably more spartan on the SX.

(Post 274)

Quote:%And yes, you'll have to type in that sum symbol yourself (Right-Shift-U for the 48SX/GX)

\<< \-> CNT

\<< TICKS '\(\sum\)(X=1,CNT,XROOT(3,EXP(SIN(ATAN(X)))))' EVAL SWAP TICKS SWAP -

8192 /

\>>

\>>

Oh, and I finally managed to find a PDF manual for the SX; as most of you know, there are quite a few differences between the SX and GX and they were doing my head in. I still don't know how to do certain things I take for granted on my 50G, but things are considerably more spartan on the SX.

(Post 274)

09-05-2018, 10:36 AM

also anyone else with the prime G2 ?

09-05-2018, 10:41 AM

(09-05-2018 10:36 AM)pier4r Wrote: [ -> ]also anyone else with the prime G2 ?

I have one. Just need 5 minutes to run the tests and report back!

Edit: Here's a screenshot of a bunch of tests...

09-05-2018, 12:23 PM

Casio fx-92+ Spéciale Collège

n=1000

t~163s

Result=1395.346288

With "Algorithmique" feature[/php]

n=1000

t~163s

Result=1395.346288

With "Algorithmique" feature[/php]

09-05-2018, 02:26 PM

(09-05-2018 10:34 AM)brickviking Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the original summation test, I decided to feed it through my copy of x48-0.6.4. I got some slightly strange results, which seem to be dependent upon the machine that x48's running on, so I'm interested in knowing if anyone's done the test on a real 48SX, as I haven't seen one in pier4r's list of results. My program's below, but it's pretty much the sum from 1 to n for the original formula.

Quote:%And yes, you'll have to type in that sum symbol yourself (Right-Shift-U for the 48SX/GX)

\<< \-> CNT

\<< TICKS '\(\sum\)(X=1,CNT,XROOT(3,EXP(SIN(ATAN(X)))))' EVAL SWAP TICKS SWAP -

8192 /

\>>

\>>

Oh, and I finally managed to find a PDF manual for the SX; as most of you know, there are quite a few differences between the SX and GX and they were doing my head in. I still don't know how to do certain things I take for granted on my 50G, but things are considerably more spartan on the SX.

(Post 274)

Using a slightly modified program (since I have TEVAL already built) my results for a real 48SX are:

n=1000

t=95.5s

Result=1395.3462877

09-06-2018, 09:30 PM

a different result for NUMWORKS (Python script)

Someone posted that 100000 iterations would take 84sec. My script does it within 68sec. Perhaps I made a mistake? I'm not at all experienced with Python.

So here is the short script

Result is 139560.97614110521

Günter

Someone posted that 100000 iterations would take 84sec. My script does it within 68sec. Perhaps I made a mistake? I'm not at all experienced with Python.

So here is the short script

Code:

from math import *

x=0

for i in range(1,100001):

x=x+pow(exp(sin(atan(i))),1/3)

print(x)

Result is 139560.97614110521

Günter

09-06-2018, 09:46 PM

(09-06-2018 09:30 PM)Guenter Schink Wrote: [ -> ]a different result for NUMWORKS (Python script)

Someone posted that 100000 iterations would take 84sec. My script does it within 68sec. Perhaps I made a mistake? I'm not at all experienced with Python.

So here is the short scriptCode:

from math import *

x=0

for i in range(1,100001):

x=x+pow(exp(sin(atan(i))),1/3)

print(x)

Result is 139560.97614110521

Günter

As was pointed out to me over in this thread, you can significantly speed up Micro Python code by doing the work inside a function.

This version runs in about 57 seconds on my Casio fx-CG50, producing 139560.9761410521:

Code:

`from math import *`

def RunTest():

x=0

for i in range(1,100001):

x=x+pow(exp(sin(atan(i))),1/3)

print(x)

RunTest()

09-06-2018, 10:12 PM

(09-06-2018 09:46 PM)Dave Britten Wrote: [ -> ](09-06-2018 09:30 PM)Guenter Schink Wrote: [ -> ]a different result for NUMWORKS (Python script)

Someone posted that 100000 iterations would take 84sec. My script does it within 68sec. Perhaps I made a mistake? I'm not at all experienced with Python.

So here is the short scriptCode:

from math import *

x=0

for i in range(1,100001):

x=x+pow(exp(sin(atan(i))),1/3)

print(x)

Result is 139560.97614110521

Günter

As was pointed out to me over in this thread, you can significantly speed up Micro Python code by doing the work inside a function.

This version runs in about 57 seconds on my Casio fx-CG50, producing 139560.9761410521:

Code:

`from math import *`

def RunTest():

x=0

for i in range(1,100001):

x=x+pow(exp(sin(atan(i))),1/3)

print(x)

RunTest()

Thanks Dave,

I applied the changes as above, making it a function. The difference however is marginal, 65sec instead of 68. Seems to depend on the implementation of Python. But it's an improvement still.

Regards, Günter

edit: typo

09-06-2018, 10:23 PM

(09-06-2018 09:46 PM)Dave Britten Wrote: [ -> ]Code:

`from math import *`

def RunTest():

x=0

for i in range(1,100001):

x=x+pow(exp(sin(atan(i))),1/3)

print(x)

RunTest()

Hi, Dave Britten

Does Micro Python support default arguments, like regular Python ?

If Yes, changing def RunTest() to def RunTest(pow=pow, exp=exp, sin=sin, atan=atan) should be faster.

Now, all variables are locals (pow, exp, sin, atan are variables too)

09-06-2018, 11:28 PM

(09-06-2018 10:23 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: [ -> ]Does Micro Python support default arguments, like regular Python ?

If Yes, changing def RunTest() to def RunTest(pow=pow, exp=exp, sin=sin, atan=atan) should be faster.

Now, all variables are locals (pow, exp, sin, atan are variables too)

You could assign those as variables within RunTest() itself.

Code:

`import math`

def RunTest(n):

pow=math.pow

exp=math.exp

sin=math.sin

atan=math.atan

x=0

for i in range(1,n+1):

x=x+pow(exp(sin(atan(i))),1/3)

print(x)

RunTest(100000)

Finishes in ~53 seconds on fx-CG50.