Summation based benchmark for calculators

12242017, 09:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 12242017 10:14 AM by pier4r.)
Post: #21




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12242017 02:32 AM)AlexFekken Wrote: Simpson's rule is for student's only. ... But perhaps it explains your obsession (in this thread) with summations. I do perceive the above sentences as confrontational and belittling. If this would be the case, I don't understand why and I think it is not needed. I mean, whatever the topic is, if it bugs you, you can just ignore it. Said that, some answers. First, thanks for your input about what you think should be a benchmark. Anyway I disagree with it. Not technically though. Technically you may be also right, but because what you suggest is quite time consuming since a benchmark like the one in this thread is based on voluntary participation. If you design a task that is time consuming, likely no one (I myself!) will participate. With no data, there is no benchmark. You yourself said "Lots of words, encouraging you to do lots of work, by someone who isn't going to do that work. ". That confirms my point above. Second. A benchmark is limited in scope. I can benchmark whatever, if someone uses the calculator for a well defined tasks that is not included, even partially, in the benchmark, the benchmark is useless. I think everyone knows this. In this thread I wanted to collect the time needed to repeat some functions from the set of trig , ln/exp, power functions. That's it. And I thank everyone for it! This also leads to the third point. Third: my apparent obsession with summation (thanks for jumping to conclusion!). I see the summation as an easy way to have a loop that tests the given instructions. A loop that can be found also in scientific calculators that are not programmable . If you find another way to let non programmable scientific calculators do a loop without summation or integration, I am interested, seriously. With a summation, a user can quickly press (if the function is available): Sum function, the function as argument of the sum, the variable, extremes. Execute it. Report the time. End of the task. 4th. In connection to the third point. "Simpson's rule is for student's only.". This sounds like "if you are using a decimal approximation of pi with less than 109 digits, your are doing it wrong". If that sounds good to you, good to know. Aside from that, I used the Simpson's rule because the only loop available in a sharp 506w is the numeric integration, and it uses the Simpson's rule (the image posted previously is taken from the 506w manual). Then I tried to adapt the formula in the numeric integration so to have the closes possible similarity between the summation formula and the numeric integration on the 506w. I hope my answers helps to clarify why I did this or that. Going back to the benchmark topic. Is there anyone willing to do the test with a:  a 41 version  41 CL  dm41 > covered by grbanks  hp 42s  35s > covered by grbanks  12C (recent)  15C (LE got covered by Gilles)  71B  67  34S Thanks for your help! The rest got mostly covered (although having confirmations of the timings, by independent tests, is always good). Well aside from 50g hpgcc and nspire lua, but in those cases the benchmark becomes time consuming, since it is not immediate to program with lua/hpgcc in the calculator. edit: thanks for the additional results Gilles! edit2: thanks for the additional results, Grsbanks! Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

12242017, 01:31 PM
Post: #22




RE: Summation based test for calculators
According to the pier4r 's recommendation I set the settings to approximate and display digits  float 6
TiNspire CX CAS  approx. 2.5s, 1395.35 n=10000 TiNspire CX CAS  approx. 24.5s, 13955.9 

12242017, 10:09 PM
Post: #23




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12242017 01:31 PM)klesl Wrote: According to the pier4r 's recommendation I set the settings to approximate and display digits  float 6 I can corroborate these timings, although I get 22.5s for n=10^4 n=10^5 => 222s 

12242017, 10:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 12242017 10:41 PM by pier4r.)
Post: #24




RE: Summation based test for calculators
added and fixed some entries thanks to the results of grsbanks! (in some cases timings were confirmed, but information was added)
Interesting observations from him Quote:I can confirm that the DM41 is much slower than the DM15/DM11 (I used my DM11L this time around). The DM41 really is a slow machine. Plenty of features, sure, but dog slow. In fact it's the slowest of them all and really not something you want to use for intensive number crunching. Given the results so far I would say.  Impressive the 991ex, pretty quick for its price. In general the flagship casio products are all quite competitive.  the prime is on par with the nspire when using the internal sum function but the limit of 10000 entries sounds bad (although few would use more than 10000 entries).  the prime hp ppl is impressive. 10 times faster than any other calculator reported. (I guess lua with the nspire would reach a similar speed, but it is unusable from the calculator)  the hp 50g summation is more advanced than a userRPL for loop. Well done. Plus it still holds its ground after years. For example in comparison versus the new primz.  newRPL pushes the 50g greatly, well done.  the dm42 is fricking fast. Especially compared to other swissmicro products.  the first nspire (from 2006) is still competitive. Therefore the main systems did not change much in the nspire.  I learned that the ti 89 has quintillions of apps (really, quintillions), but in terms of speed the real competitor was the 48 series. The 50g has almost the double of the speed.  hp 35s . Suprisingly slow! I was expecting the speed of the 15 LE. Still missing:  a 41 version  41 CL  12C (recent)  15C  71B  67  34S  Casio classpad (if possible 300 . We got the 400)  Some sharpr PC  other interesting calculators (the casio fx5008p for example) Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

12242017, 11:15 PM
Post: #25




RE: Summation based test for calculators
WP 34S double on, fix 2: ~185 seconds
Double off, fix 2: ~168 seconds 

12242017, 11:17 PM
Post: #26




RE: Summation based test for calculators
CASIO Prizm foxCG10: ~24.5 seconds (looks like CG50 is about twice as fast with this task)


12242017, 11:20 PM
Post: #27




RE: Summation based test for calculators  
12242017, 11:24 PM
Post: #28




RE: Summation based test for calculators
Version 3.3 3774
My CASIO fxCG10 report was using it's summation function. 

12252017, 12:46 AM
Post: #29




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12242017 09:09 AM)pier4r Wrote: Going back to the benchmark topic. Is there anyone willing to do the test with a: Amazed by the really small (~10 %) increase in time in the wp34s when switched from 16 to 34 digits. César  Information must flow. 

12252017, 01:07 AM
Post: #30




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12252017 12:46 AM)emece67 Wrote: Amazed by the really small (~10 %) increase in time in the wp34s when switched from 16 to 34 digits. The 34S computes in beyond double precision internally regardless of the mode set. My feeling is that the reduction in memory accesses (copying mostly) account for the bulk of the difference between the two. However, there are a few functions where being in single precision allows some short cuts. Pauli 

12252017, 08:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 12252017 08:39 AM by pier4r.)
Post: #31




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12242017 11:15 PM)lrdheat Wrote: . (12242017 11:17 PM)lrdheat Wrote: . (12252017 12:46 AM)emece67 Wrote: . Thanks! (and Merry Christmas!) edit: It is also interesting to see the difference between systems in this test (that is more math heavy) compared to the 8 queen test (that is more add/sub + memory heavy). In this test newRPL is 5.5 times faster than userRPL on the 50g (6s vs 33s). A bit less when the 50g uses the sum function. In the 8 queen test newRPL is 216 times faster than userRPL (0.106s vs 22.6s). Still missing:  a 41 version  41 CL  12C (recent and old)  71B  67  Casio classpad (if possible 300 . We got the 400)  Some sharp PC  other capable (programmable or sum function) calculators (the casio fx5008p for example) Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

12252017, 11:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 12252017 12:01 PM by emece67.)
Post: #32




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12252017 08:25 AM)pier4r Wrote: Still missing: Twice as fast as a 15C, slightly faster than expected. César  Information must flow. 

12252017, 02:03 PM
Post: #33




RE: Summation based test for calculators
Casio fx9700GE  approx. 1m 16s, 1395.34628774
Casio ClassPad 330A  approx. 18s, 1395.346288 Casio fx5800P  approx. 2m 46s, 1395.346288 Casio fx7400GII  approx. 20s, 1395.346288 Casio fx9860G Slim (hacked to 9860GII OS 2.04)  approx. 23s, 1395.346288 HP40gs  approx. 34s, 1395.3462877 Canon X Mark I Pro  between 14m a 14m 50s, 1395.346288 Notice: The ClassPad is labeled on the back side as CLASSPAD300PLS, the 330A is written on the box 

12252017, 02:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 12252017 02:29 PM by pier4r.)
Post: #34




RE: Summation based test for calculators
Thanks for the new entries!
Observation. As discussed in this thread the 35s, fx5800p and dm42 are the top3 options for a scientific calculator with ability to store many formulas. Anyway I am impressed by the difference of speed between the 35s and the fx5800p (note, it may be that for normal usage this difference will be never noticed). The dm42 is just amazing but it is also 4 time the price of 35s and fx5800p (and again, we are talking only about speed, not common operations). Question to emece67. Is your 15C much older than your 41CV ? Still missing  41 CL  12C (recent and old)  71B  67  Some sharp PC  other capable (programmable or sum function) calculators Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

12252017, 02:45 PM
Post: #35




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12252017 02:25 PM)pier4r Wrote: Question to emece67. Is your 15C much older than your 41CV ? Cannot say, the 41 I used has its CPU board changed. Originally it was a 41C, now it is a 41CV. I do not know the serial number of the donor machine. Regards. César  Information must flow. 

12252017, 06:16 PM
Post: #36




RE: Summation based test for calculators
All my previous tests used sum function.
n=1000 Casio Basic, loop "For To Next" Casio fx50F PLUS  approx. 10m 33s, 1395.346288 Casio fx3650PII  approx. 9m 22s, 1395.346288  Integral calculation Sharp ELW506X  approx. 64s, 1394.866122 Sharp EL506X  approx. 97s, 1394.026202, n=500 

12252017, 07:24 PM
Post: #37




RE: Summation based test for calculators
HP67. 100 terms (139.2925695) took 5m 40s.


12252017, 08:06 PM
Post: #38




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12252017 06:16 PM)klesl Wrote:  (12252017 07:24 PM)BobVA Wrote:  Both included. Thanks and Merry Christmas /happy holidays. Still missing  41 CL  12C (recent and old)  71B  Some sharp PC  other capable (programmable or sum function) calculators Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

12262017, 03:45 AM
Post: #39




RE: Summation based test for calculators
HP41CL / x50 speed: 100 iterations (139.2926) 15s


12262017, 05:43 AM
Post: #40




RE: Summation based test for calculators
(12262017 03:45 AM)BobVA Wrote: HP41CL / x50 speed: 100 iterations (139.2926) 15s I get something different. 41CL, v5 board, TURBO 50. Using the Sigma+ function to accumulate intermediate values because it has the advantage of returning the index X each invocation. Twelve instructions from the loop header label to the bottom GTO with no instructions other than the 41C/CV/CX defaults: 10 13.711835 0.55 seconds 100 139.297187 5.13 seconds 1,000 1395.346260 48.31 seconds 10,000 13955.84859 7 minutes 48.24 seconds Oddly, this quick hack turned out to be faster than dedicated register counter and accumulator versions. I guess that's the speed advantage of MCODE over FOCAL programs, eh? Interesting problem to play with! ~Mark Who decides? 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

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