Post Reply 
Summation based benchmark for calculators
10-08-2020, 10:39 AM
Post: #201
RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(10-07-2020 08:08 PM)Frido Bohn Wrote:  fast mode, battery powered: result=139.2971873, time 14.33 s
fast mode, USB connected: result=139.2971873, time 4.61 s

The FOCAL program was beginner level, i.e., not streamlined to stack-only operations.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2020, 04:12 PM
Post: #202
RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(10-08-2020 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.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2020, 02:52 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2020 04:20 AM by Mjim.)
Post: #203
RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
Recently obtained an fx-3600pv (circa 1989/90), which needed a bit of cleanup and repair (segment problems). Considerably faster than the fx-50F, 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 fx-991MS 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 fx-3600pv.

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 fx-50f), 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 fx-3600pv 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 fx-3600pv, but seems a widespread problem with any of the old Casio's using 11 digits of accuracy (verified on the fx-550s and the fx-82LB - 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 fx-50f (~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 fx-50f & fx-3600pv, 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.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2020, 05:39 PM
Post: #204
RE: Summation based benchmark for calculators
(10-08-2020 10:39 AM)grsbanks Wrote:  
(10-07-2020 08:08 PM)Frido Bohn Wrote:  fast mode, battery powered: result=139.2971873, time 14.33 s
fast mode, USB connected: result=139.2971873, time 4.61 s

The FOCAL program was beginner level, i.e., not streamlined to stack-only operations.

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.

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




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