Summation based benchmark for calculators

08262018, 07:44 PM
Post: #121




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Planning to do just that. I should get my Prime G2 on Tuesday or Wednesday.


08262018, 10:15 PM
Post: #122




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Casio fx4000P
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 — Ian Abbott 

08282018, 07:51 PM
Post: #123




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Updated until post #122. If someone finds missing results, please report them!
Also some versioning is here: http://www.wiki4hp.com/doku.php?id=bench...g_exp_root Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

08282018, 08:21 PM
Post: #124




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Results from a Casio fx720P with this program:
Code: 10 T=0 ~4 sec. to produce 13.7118350167 for X=1 to 10 ~43 sec. to produce 139.297187038 for X=1 to 100 

08282018, 08:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 08292018 07:45 AM by StephenG1CMZ.)
Post: #125




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
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/thread9626.html Update: Anders has reported timings for Prime C and Prime G2 here: http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread11202page3.html Stephen Lewkowicz (G1CMZ) 

08282018, 09:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 08282018 09:52 PM by ijabbott.)
Post: #126




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
HP27S
n=1000 t∼120s Result=1395.3462877 Code: BENCH=Σ(X:1:1000:1:EXP(SIN(ATAN(X)))^.333333333333) Surprisingly fast compared to HP42S. (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.) — Ian Abbott 

08292018, 04:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 08292018 04:22 AM by Tim Wessman.)
Post: #127




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
PrimeG2: ~7.22_s with run of 10 average.
SUM function, 100000 TW Although I work for the HP calculator group, the views and opinions I post here are my own. 

08292018, 06:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 08292018 06:18 AM by pier4r.)
Post: #128




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

08312018, 07:53 PM
Post: #129




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Updated up to post #127
Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

09052018, 05:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 09052018 11:52 AM by Gene.)
Post: #130




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Casio fx92+ 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 fx92 + 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 

09052018, 10:34 AM
Post: #131




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Regarding the original summation test, I decided to feed it through my copy of x480.6.4. 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 (RightShiftU for the 48SX/GX) 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) Regards, BrickViking HP50g Casio fx9750G+ Casio fx9750GII (SH4a) 

09052018, 10:36 AM
Post: #132




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
also anyone else with the prime G2 ?
Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

09052018, 10:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 09052018 10:54 AM by grsbanks.)
Post: #133




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators  
09052018, 12:23 PM
Post: #134




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Casio fx92+ Spéciale Collège
n=1000 t~163s Result=1395.346288 With "Algorithmique" feature[/php] 

09052018, 02:26 PM
Post: #135




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(09052018 10:34 AM)brickviking Wrote: Regarding the original summation test, I decided to feed it through my copy of x480.6.4. 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. 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 Bob Prosperi 

09062018, 09:30 PM
Post: #136




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
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:
Result is 139560.97614110521 Günter 

09062018, 09:46 PM
Post: #137




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(09062018 09:30 PM)Guenter Schink Wrote: a different result for NUMWORKS (Python script) 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 fxCG50, producing 139560.9761410521: Code: from math import * 

09062018, 10:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 09062018 10:13 PM by Guenter Schink.)
Post: #138




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(09062018 09:46 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:(09062018 09:30 PM)Guenter Schink Wrote: a different result for NUMWORKS (Python script) 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 

09062018, 10:23 PM
Post: #139




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(09062018 09:46 PM)Dave Britten Wrote: 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) 

09062018, 11:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 09062018 11:37 PM by ijabbott.)
Post: #140




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(09062018 10:23 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Does Micro Python support default arguments, like regular Python ? You could assign those as variables within RunTest() itself. Code: import math Finishes in ~53 seconds on fxCG50. — Ian Abbott 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

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