HP 49G / HP 50G memory

[DavidM]

(11-19-2017 01:37 AM)TravisE Wrote:  Oddly enough, despite what was said above, it seems that in some of my informal tests, programs from libraries stored in Port 1 appear to run slightly slower on my 50g than from Port 2. For instance, I tried executing a loop that repeatedly called a short UserRPL program I had stored in a library; with the library in Port 1, I got fewer average executions per second than in Port 2, and in Port 2 I got fewer executions per second than I got with the library in Port 0. However, the increase in performance from Port 1 to Port 2, or from Port 2 to Port 0, was only on the order of around 3 to 5 percent or so.

FWIW I was actually surprised in my above test that port 1 came out ahead of port 2, because I've experienced the same thing as you when testing real applications. I don't have any concrete data to back it up, though. Just recollections of previous tests.

I did try adjusting the above program to use a larger temporary object, and that brought the port 1 & 2 timings much closer together (but port 2 was still the slowest). Purely speculation on my part, but I'm wondering if something slows down port 1 further when the targeted object is executable code (or objects in a library).

Whatever the true causes may be, I simply don't use port 1 for anything where performance is an issue. I use port 2 for the majority of my library storage, and port 0 is reserved mostly for development and testing.