hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - Printable Version +- HP Forums (https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum) +-- Forum: HP Calculators (and very old HP Computers) (/forum-3.html) +--- Forum: General Forum (/forum-4.html) +--- Thread: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark (/thread-1487.html) Pages: 1 2 |
RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - GeorgeOfTheJungle - 05-31-2014 09:52 PM (05-31-2014 08:25 PM)Marcus von Cube Wrote: Don't get me wrong. In many aspects, the unmodified 30b is the faster machine. You can just do much more with the 34S which is still reasonably fast at least. And much more fun, of course . Much more fun, that's for sure :-) But this µbenchmark isn't any faster in the 30b... Do you have any idea why? RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - Steve Keeley - 05-31-2014 10:33 PM I tried this on a vintage 15C and got 139. On my 42S I got 1,087. (With Free42 I got 144,108,888.) RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - Dave Britten - 06-01-2014 12:08 AM (05-31-2014 09:37 PM)GeorgeOfTheJungle Wrote:(05-31-2014 08:39 PM)Dave Britten Wrote: Didn't see the 15C LE in the list, so I gave it a try. Not even close, ha ha. Maybe a few dozen programmables of various brands to tinker with. I don't have any of the really expensive HP stuff (42S, 41C, anything with LEDs, etc). RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - walter b - 06-01-2014 08:10 AM (05-31-2014 10:33 PM)Steve Keeley Wrote: With Free42 I got 144,108,888. That depends on the platform you're running it on d:-) RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - walter b - 06-01-2014 08:16 AM (05-31-2014 06:15 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:(05-31-2014 06:13 PM)Marcus von Cube Wrote: (I leave it to Walter to comment on the display ). Seems necessary no more. Everybody knows it, even M. ... d:-) RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - walter b - 06-01-2014 08:23 AM (05-31-2014 09:37 PM)GeorgeOfTheJungle Wrote:(05-31-2014 08:39 PM)Dave Britten Wrote: Do you have the necessary flashing cable or USB module to solder in? Enjoy! d:-) RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - Marcus von Cube - 06-01-2014 09:04 AM (05-31-2014 09:52 PM)GeorgeOfTheJungle Wrote:It's probably just too simple. The 30b uses an HP legacy C library for all computations with a precision (and accuracy) of 12 BCD digits while the 34S is based on the decNumber library which supports arbitrary precision BCD numbers. Internal computations are carried out with 39 digits at least, some modulo calculations with a few hundreds of digits to avoid cancellation. More elaborate algorithms are coded as double precision (34 digits) keystroke programs to save flash space for the cost of execution speed (and the loss of a few digits of accuracy in double precision mode). The register formats are (variants of) decimal64 and decimal128 which need to be converted back and forth from/to the decNumber format. This is a lot of overhead and doesn't come for free in terms of execution speed.(05-31-2014 08:25 PM)Marcus von Cube Wrote: Don't get me wrong. In many aspects, the unmodified 30b is the faster machine. ...... RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - Marcel Samek - 06-01-2014 03:26 PM (05-31-2014 12:11 PM)GeorgeOfTheJungle Wrote: I've read somewhere that the 67 is slower than the 65, is that true? On my 67 I only get 103 after 30s. That's hard to believe that the 67 is that much slower. RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - Dieter - 06-01-2014 08:41 PM (06-01-2014 03:26 PM)Marcel Samek Wrote: On my 67 I only get 103 after 30s. That's hard to believe that the 67 is that much slower. If your 67 program uses a simple GTO command this seems realistic. I do not own a 67, but a 34C with similar speed. Compared to a 41C the latter is at least 3x slower. With a simple program consisting essentially of one addition and a GTO, the 41C advantage even grows since jump targets are "compiled" while the 67 has to do a new label search in every single loop. And since it searches from the current line onwards, it has to check roughly 220 lines ahead... #-) So 103 loops on a '67 looks realistic, compared to 500+ on a 41C with this kind of program (!). The already mentioned older thread reported 226 loops per minute, i.e. 113 in 30 seconds on another '67 which essentially matches your result. You may get a better result with a GTO(i) command with a negative number in register I. The older thread reports about 50% more speed for this option. So you could try something like this: Code: 001 LBL A But do not forget that this is a very (!) simple test that does not provide much information regarding real world HP67-programs. IMHO you can expect about 1/3 the speed of a HP41, on average. Dieter RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - GeorgeOfTheJungle - 06-05-2014 04:01 PM (05-31-2014 03:30 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:(05-31-2014 02:44 PM)GeorgeOfTheJungle Wrote: In the link that Massimo has posted (btw, thanks, Massimo) it says: I've received my new 30b, and while it's still a 30b I've run the code Code: SH5 1 ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER LBL 01 + GTO 01 RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - John R. Graham - 06-05-2014 04:45 PM Just for grins, on the 50g with Code: << 0 - John RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - pito - 06-05-2014 05:49 PM HP-25 346 30secs run p. RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - John R. Graham - 06-05-2014 07:30 PM (06-05-2014 04:45 PM)John R. Graham Wrote: Just for grins, on the 50g withWow. Floating point runs much faster than integer. With the following trivial modification, Code: << 0. - John RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - Marcus von Cube - 06-05-2014 07:41 PM (06-05-2014 07:30 PM)John R. Graham Wrote: Wow. Floating point runs much faster than integer.Integers are arbitrary precision, not binary integers. That should explain the difference. RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - John R. Graham - 06-05-2014 07:47 PM Yes, that subsequently occurred to me. Furthermore, the result of all the testing operators is floating point 1. or 0. so "WHILE 1." avoids an unnecessary conversion. - John RE: hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark - John R. Graham - 06-05-2014 10:11 PM HP Prime clocks in at 966,967 iterations in 30 seconds: Code: EXPORT Benchmark1() |