Summation based benchmark for calculators

01182018, 09:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 01182018 10:02 PM by pier4r.)
Post: #81




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Added many thanks!
I got from ebay, since they are plentiful and cheap (see n1) 9860g and 9860gII , then I will see if I can replicate the reported results. Also for possible future searches. Both can be kept alive via USB like the 50g. The USB cable is the same of the 50g (and ti89): mini B. Of course the 50g wins easily in terms of long term storage (sd card) that can be recovered even if the main system goes awry. n1: http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread970...l#pid88145  I do not remember where I wrote that I wonder how many functioning devices are trashed after the owner does not like them again instead of ending on ebay. Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

01192018, 01:23 AM
Post: #82




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
HP 32SII
1000 loops —> 241 seconds, Result = 1395.34628770 100 loops —> 26 seconds, Result = 139.29718705 10 loops —> 3 seconds, Result = 13.71183502 

01192018, 02:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 01192018 03:01 AM by Michael de Estrada.)
Post: #83




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
HP55 (Classic)
100 loops —> 434 seconds, Result = 139.2971873 10 loops —> 43 seconds, Result = 13.71183501 Note that the times are much slower than the HP65, which has a loop counter DSZ. 

01202018, 03:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 01202018 04:22 AM by Michael de Estrada.)
Post: #84




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Elektronika MK 54, MK 56 and MK 61
These are Soviet RPN programmable calculators from the mid 1980s to the early 1990s. They are extremely slow, so I only have results for 10 loops. MK 54: 10 loops —> 99 seconds, Result = 13.711835 MK 56: 10 loops —> 110 seconds, Result = 13.711835 MK 61: 10 loops —> 100 seconds, Result = 13.711835 

01202018, 10:45 AM
Post: #85




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
added!
Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

01202018, 10:49 AM
Post: #86




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
HP15C: 100 loops => 313s
The DM15L does the same job 22x faster in 14s 

01202018, 02:50 PM
Post: #87




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
DM42 with Firmware v3.2
It has slowed down with the new firmware, which lowered the code optimization to prevent the calculator from hanging during intensive calculations. 1000 loops powered by batteries —> 9.83 sec, Result = 1,395.34628774 10,000 loops powered by USB —> 30.48 sec, Result = 13,955.8579043 

01202018, 03:26 PM
Post: #88




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01202018 02:50 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote: DM42 with Firmware v3.2 I'm on a slightly later firmware version than you but nothing has been done to provide any acceleration in my internal test version. I get: 1000 loops on battery > 6.45s 10000 loops on USB > 26.57s This is with RefLCD set to 6. 

01202018, 04:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 01212018 05:18 PM by Michael de Estrada.)
Post: #89




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01202018 03:26 PM)grsbanks Wrote:(01202018 02:50 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote: DM42 with Firmware v3.2 I changed RefLCD from 7 to 6, and it did have a significant effect on the run times as follows: 1000 loops on battery changed from 9.83 sec to 7.08 sec 10000 loops on USB changed from 30.48 sec to 28.03 sec They are still not as good as your times, which no doubt is due to your code being more efficient. 

01202018, 04:09 PM
Post: #90




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01202018 04:03 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote: They are still not as good as your times, which no doubt is due to your code being more efficient. For what it's worth, this is my code: Code: 00 { 43Byte Prgm } 

01202018, 04:37 PM
Post: #91




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01202018 04:09 PM)grsbanks Wrote:(01202018 04:03 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote: They are still not as good as your times, which no doubt is due to your code being more efficient. Yes, your code is better, since you are doing everything in the stack, whereas I am using variables. I didn’t realize you could access the stack with DSE and ISG, which really helps. My new times using your code are 6.83 sec with 1000 loops on batteries and 27.01 sec with 10000 loops on USB. 

01212018, 10:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 01212018 10:23 PM by TheKaneB.)
Post: #92




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Sharp EL9300 graphing calculator, exact same code that I wrote for the EL5120 Solver, got 22 seconds for 100 iterations.
Software Failure: Guru Meditation  Antonio IU2KIY 

01222018, 10:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 01222018 10:09 PM by Guenter Schink.)
Post: #93




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Epson HX20 an early "laptop"
Basic single precision <= 7 digits 10 cycles: 2 sec; Result: 13.7118 100 cycles: 18 sec; Result: 139.297 1000 cycles: 173 sec Result:1395.36 double precision <= 16 digits 10 cycles: 2 sec; Result: 13.71183562278748 100 cycles: 18 sec; Result: 139.297193646431 1000 cycles: 173 sec; Result: 1395.346369147301 No apparent difference of runtime between single and double precision. Günter 

01232018, 07:33 PM
Post: #94




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
added all. The dm42, as far as I understood, did not change significantly the timings using the code of grsbanks.
Interesting the epson, that is as large as a 9825/9100 as far as I understood. Also, what about 91xx/98xx series? Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

01232018, 07:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 01232018 08:03 PM by Thomas Okken.)
Post: #95




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01232018 07:33 PM)pier4r Wrote: Interesting the epson, that is as large as a 9825/9100 as far as I understood. No, no! The HX20 has less than a third of the footprint of the 9825, and it's lower, weighs 3.5 lbs instead of 26, and runs on batteries. There's no comparison, really. Cool machine, but I couldn't have afforded it back then. (It wasn't as far out of reach as the HP machines, though!) 

01232018, 08:19 PM
Post: #96




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Speaking of little laptopthingy. I unleashed my trusty Olivetti M10 (similar to the Tandy Model 100).
With 10 iterations I got about 9.5 seconds With 100 iterations about 91 seconds It has 14 digits, but I used a 12 digits approximation of "e" (copied from my Prime), so the result is a bit off. This thing has a 8085 CPU and runs Microsoft Basic Software Failure: Guru Meditation  Antonio IU2KIY 

01232018, 09:10 PM
Post: #97




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01232018 07:49 PM)Thomas Okken Wrote:(01232018 07:33 PM)pier4r Wrote: Interesting the epson, that is as large as a 9825/9100 as far as I understood. Nor couldn't I. Got it in 2012 for 40€ for my collection. It's including the microcassette tape drive. Rock solid  keyboard like on an electrical typewriter The footprint is close to an A4 paper and the height goes from 33mm to 60mm (front to rear) Günter 

01232018, 09:43 PM
Post: #98




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators  
01232018, 09:48 PM
Post: #99




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01232018 08:19 PM)TheKaneB Wrote: It has 14 digits, but I used a 12 digits approximation of "e" (copied from my Prime), so the result is a bit off. ?!? – why do you need a value for e ? Is there really no EXP() function? Especially since you mention... (01232018 08:19 PM)TheKaneB Wrote: This thing has a 8085 CPU and runs Microsoft Basic ...and an exponential function is an absolutely ...basic feature of BASIC. Dieter 

01232018, 10:43 PM
Post: #100




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(01232018 09:48 PM)Dieter Wrote:(01232018 08:19 PM)TheKaneB Wrote: It has 14 digits, but I used a 12 digits approximation of "e" (copied from my Prime), so the result is a bit off. I think you know it better than me Tomorrow I'll try again and see if it has the EXP() function and redo the benchmark. I used the standard ^ operator for powers. Software Failure: Guru Meditation  Antonio IU2KIY 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)