Post Reply 
8-Queens Benchmark
07-10-2016, 06:03 PM
Post: #21
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
(07-10-2016 03:21 AM)Accutron Wrote:  Timing it with a stopwatch, I got 12.07, 12.12, 12.08, but of course there was a small ~0.1 second delay between when the program finished and when I mashed the stop button on the watch, so the completion time is pretty much exactly 12 seconds.

...

If you have a smart phone handy I'd suggest video recording it, then reviewing the start and end frame-by-frame. Assuming 30 frame/sec, you could get sub-second accuracy.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2016, 06:45 PM
Post: #22
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
(07-10-2016 06:03 PM)Egan Ford Wrote:  If you have a smart phone handy I'd suggest video recording it, then reviewing the start and end frame-by-frame. Assuming 30 frame/sec, you could get sub-second accuracy.

Good idea. I don't own a smartphone, because they're evil tentacled brain-sucking parasites, but I do have a digital camera that can shoot at 240 FPS.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2016, 07:19 PM
Post: #23
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
I shot it three times at 240FPS, and got the same result all three times. Rounded to the nearest 1/100 sec, it's 11.92 seconds. I used Paul's corrected HPL program, with dsp instead of prt in Line 10. Xerxes should feel free to add the result to the N-Queens list.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 10:44 PM
Post: #24
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
Hello Accutron,
every result of a physical calculator or pocket computer is welcome, but unfortunately the tested devices
are not really suitable. However, it was interesting to read Paul's comments about the test results.

Calculator Benchmark
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 10:58 PM
Post: #25
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
How is the 9825 not suitable?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-13-2016, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 07-13-2016 12:55 PM by xerxes.)
Post: #26
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
I cannot say, if the 9825 is a calculator or more a computer, but nearly all tested devices in the list are
more or less pocket sized and portable, but the 9825 doesn't meet these criteria.

Calculator Benchmark
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-13-2016, 02:01 PM
Post: #27
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
Well, it's your list, but it seems a shame to leave out the best calculators HP ever made, simply because they contain too many molecules. I had always assumed that your list didn't include 9100/9800 series machines because they're somewhat rare and nobody had submitted benchmarks yet, so I was rather excited that we were obtaining rare benchmarks for you. You might want to qualify your list as only including 'small' or 'personal' calculators, as there is currently no obvious indication of this rather arbitrary qualifier.

As far as whether the 9825 is a calculator or not, it's certainly debatable from a forensic standpoint, but the designers refer to it as a calculator in the original patent, and it was referred to as a calculator in all early documentation. HP only started calling it a computer once they realized the term carried marketing value.

On the preumption that Xerxes isn't going to come around to my way of thinking, I would very much like to obtain and publish N-Queens benchmarks for the HP 9100 (can it run N-Queens? I have no idea), 9810, 9815, 9820, 9821, 9825, 9831, 9835 and 9845. I would also welcome results from their contemporaries, such as the Olivetti P101, Wang programmables, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2017, 02:53 PM
Post: #28
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
Some more results, I have obtained the Microsoft BASIC and SnapFORTH for the Panasonic HHC RL-H1800. The Microsoft BASIC version is the same as the SnapBASIC program and for SnapFORTH I modified the HP-71 FORTH program and the results are:

Microsoft BASIC Integer 69.59 seconds
Microsoft BASIC Float 58.74 seconds
SnapFORTH 23.51 seconds.

It appears that the math routines in Microsoft BASIC are optimized for floating point. I have encountered some BASICs before that do all their math in floating point so integers need to be converted to floats which slows down integer math.

Paul.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2017, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2017 03:07 PM by xerxes.)
Post: #29
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
What a nice surprise to be able to add these results to the list. Thank you for your effort.

As expected the Microsoft BASIC on the HHC is roughly as fast as the C64.

Also interesting to have 3 Forth versions in comparison now. May be someone knows,
if there is a significant speed difference between the 2 versions of Forth for the 71B.

Could you please post the SnapForth code for adding it into the list?

Calculator Benchmark
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2017, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2017 06:30 PM by rprosperi.)
Post: #30
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
(01-06-2017 02:23 PM)xerxes Wrote:  May be someone knows, if there is a significant speed difference between the 2 versions of Forth for the 71B.

It appears the 41 Translator core of Forth (2A) was tweaked considerably, as it is notably faster than version 1A. This is surprising, as it is ostensibly basically the original version with some custom Forth words to let it "run" HP-41 Programs.

41 Translator Forth (2A): 46.3 (from prior results)

71 Forth (1A): 55.02 (avg 3 runs, FRAM, time adj. to remove time spent in timer code)

71 Forth (1A): 55.18 (avg 3 runs, RAM, time adj. to remove time spent in timer code)

Good question, with somewhat surprising result.

Retesting Forth 2A with the identical code and conditions used for 1A above confirms the 2A version is faster.

Note 1: the original code used a Trans41-specific CLOCK command to time the loop; above 1A and this 2A test used same timing code.

Note 2: In all test cases, HP-IL was connected to loop, but with no I/O in the queens test, this makes no difference (confirmed).

41 Translator Forth (2A): 45.14 (avg 3 runs, RAM, time adj. to remove time spent in timer code).

Thanks for asking Xerxes

--Bob Prosperi
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2017, 06:31 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2017 10:06 PM by Jurgen Keller.)
Post: #31
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
(07-13-2016 02:01 PM)Accutron Wrote:  ... I would very much like to obtain and publish N-Queens benchmarks for the HP 9100 (can it run N-Queens? I have no idea) ...

I see no reason why a 9100B shouldn't be able to run N-Queens. With the 9100A it might get more difficult due to the limited number of registers. I'll give it a try, starting with the easier one.

PS: Rash thoughts - I forgot that without a 9101A you don't have indirect addressing. Maybe that can be emulated by some self-modifying code?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2017, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2017 07:00 PM by xerxes.)
Post: #32
RE: 8-Queens Benchmark
(01-06-2017 04:00 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  It appears the 41 Translator core of Forth (2A) was tweaked considerably, as it is notably faster than version 1A. This is surprising, as it is ostensibly basically the original version with some custom Forth words to let it "run" HP-41 Programs.

Thank you for the detailed testing and commenting the results. I've updated the list with the fastest values.

(01-06-2017 06:31 PM)Jurgen Keller Wrote:  PS: Rash thoughts - I forgot that without a 9101A you don't have indirect addressing. Maybe that can be emulated by some self-modifying code?

Yes, it's possible to use a float var to hold the array, but it makes no sense in case of benchmarking, due to the very expensive array access.

Calculator Benchmark
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)