Summation based benchmark for calculators

10082020, 10:39 AM
Post: #201




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(10072020 08:08 PM)Frido Bohn Wrote: fast mode, battery powered: result=139.2971873, time 14.33 s By doing just that (using just the stack) a while back when I first benchmarked the DM41X, I got it to do 100 iterations in 3.85s when on USB power and in 12.09s on battery power. There are only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. 

10082020, 04:12 PM
Post: #202




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(10082020 10:39 AM)grsbanks Wrote: By doing just that (using just the stack) a while back when I first benchmarked the DM41X, I got it to do 100 iterations in 3.85s when on USB power and in 12.09s on battery power. Thanks for the info. So it is an about 20% increase of speed. I am curious how this would result in MCODE. Probably the gain would not be that much as long as the built in irrational functions are used which are accessed through FOCAL as well. 

10122020, 02:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 10122020 04:20 AM by Mjim.)
Post: #203




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Recently obtained an fx3600pv (circa 1989/90), which needed a bit of cleanup and repair (segment problems). Considerably faster than the fx50F, with 38 steps and a bigger LCD display, but fairly stripped down in terms of features (No formulas, no constants).
The integration is a nice feature though and is well implemented for a Simpson version, including the trimming of inaccurate digits. It was hysterical that my fx991MS 2nd Edition that came out last year is only ~25% faster and gives the exact same answer! (78 vs 62 seconds integrating e^(x^2) from 0 to 10 using 512 divisions). Of course now the newer integration technique that Casio uses is vastly more accurate and faster, though I was surprised at how well it works on this old fx3600pv. It has some bugs in programming as I verified having the same problem as in this rskey.org article: http://www.rskey.org/fx3600pv It also uses only 11 digits of precision (vs 12 on the fx50f), which causes problems with Casio's weird rounding system: https://translate.google.com/translate?h...ch&pto=aue Basically if the last 2 digits + 11th hidden digit end in 001 > 007 it rounds down to 000, which means for the number 1,234,567,800 any added decimals between 0.1 > 0.7 don't count, which is just bizzare (you can add 0.7 as much as you like, but it wont change the answer). It will also do the same for 993 > 999 except rounding up. Also there isn't enough precision for handling powers, ie 2^33 = 8,589,934,592, but the fx3600pv instead returns 8,589,934,589 which is off by 3, exceeding Casio's stated accuracy of +1 digit on the 10th digit. This isn't just a problem for the fx3600pv, but seems a widespread problem with any of the old Casio's using 11 digits of accuracy (verified on the fx550s and the fx82LB  though that is only 8 digits, so not so much of a problem). In any case, probably too much commentary, here are the figures: Summation Benchmark n=10: Average of 3 tests (Degrees): 6 seconds Result: 13.711835009 Summation Benchmark n=100: Average of 3 tests (Degrees): 58.9 seconds Result: 139.2971869 Summation Benchmark n=1000: Test 1 (Degrees): 573 seconds Test 2 (Radians): 574 seconds Result: 1395.3462707 (same for both tests, whether degrees or radians) It's much faster than the fx50f (~3 times), but it isn't as accurate. EDIT: I should add that this was well lit, next to the window on an overcast, but bright day. While I also have a brand new silver oxide battery in both the fx50f & fx3600pv, it does take longer when moved away from a light source (~74 instead of 58 seconds on my desk just testing now). It was also mentioned above that in some cases the cube root vs the x^(1/y) power function can produce different results, but they seem to be about the same on this old Casio. The square and root function are actually much faster on the Casio then using the x^(1/y), but that wasn't used for this benchmark. 

10152020, 05:39 PM
Post: #204




RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(10082020 10:39 AM)grsbanks Wrote:(10072020 08:08 PM)Frido Bohn Wrote: fast mode, battery powered: result=139.2971873, time 14.33 s I get slower times with coding that uses storage registers and the TIME function to compute the elapsed time, rather than a stopwatch: LBL <t>SPEED STO 10 TIME HR STO 00 0 STO 11 1 STO 12 LBL 01 ATAN SIN E^x 3 1/X Y^x ST+ 11 RCL 12 1 + STO 12 DSE 10 GTO 01 TIME HR RCL 00  3600 * END My results are: fast mode, battery powered: result=139.2971873, time 16.36 s fast mode, USB connected: result=139.2971873, time 5.36 s 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

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