 Summation based benchmark for calculators - 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: Summation based benchmark for calculators (/thread-9750.html) Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - grsbanks - 08-26-2018 07:44 PM Planning to do just that. I should get my Prime G2 on Tuesday or Wednesday. RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - ijabbott - 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, '?': Code: Rad : ? → A : 0 : Lbl 1 : Ans + ∛ e sin tan⁻¹ A : Dsz A : Goto 1 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - pier4r - 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=benchmarks:sum_trig_exp_root RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - Dave Britten - 08-28-2018 08:21 PM Results from a Casio fx-720P with this program: 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 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - StephenG1CMZ - 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 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - ijabbott - 08-28-2018 09:28 PM HP-27S 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.) RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - Tim Wessman - 08-29-2018 04:19 AM PrimeG2: ~7.22_s with run of 10 average. SUM function, 100000 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - pier4r - 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. RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - pier4r - 08-31-2018 07:53 PM Updated up to post #127 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - lrvan - 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 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - brickviking - 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. 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) RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - pier4r - 09-05-2018 10:36 AM also anyone else with the prime G2 ? RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - grsbanks - 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... RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - lrvan - 09-05-2018 12:23 PM Casio fx-92+ Spéciale Collège n=1000 t~163s Result=1395.346288 With "Algorithmique" feature[/php] RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - rprosperi - 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 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - Guenter Schink - 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 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 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - Dave Britten - 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 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 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() RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - Guenter Schink - 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 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 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 RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - Albert Chan - 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) RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators - ijabbott - 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.