HP Forums

I was amazed by the speed of the WP34S, so I decided to write a litte program to compare its speed to my other calculators. The Program simply adds all integers from the entered number down to 1 and displays the result.
Because some calculators have no loop control and others lack the x=0? test, I wrote a few different versions. This isn't the most scientific aproach to this, but I thought I'd share it anyway. If you feel like it you could also add execution times for the calculators I couldn't test because I simply don't own an example.

Program 1:

001 LBL A

002 STO 00

003 1

004 STO-00

005 R down

006 RCL 00

007 x=0?

008 Skip 002

009 +

010 back 007

011 R down

012 RTN

Slightly different version without the skip and back branching of the 34S:

001 LBL A

002 STO 00

003 LBL 1

004 1

005 STO-00

006 R down

007 RCL 00

008 x=0?

009 GTO 0

010 +

011 GTO 1

012 LBL 0

013 R down

014 RTN

HP-15C (original) add up to 100:	 1min 4sec

HP-15C LE	  add up to 1000:  4sec

		  add up to 10000: 39sec

HP-42S		  add up to 100:	 10sec

		  add up to 1000:  1min 44sec

HP-33s		  add up to 1000:  19sec

HP-35s		  add up to 1000:  1min 3sec

HP-32SII          add up to 1000:  37sec

HP-41CV		  add up to 100:   23sec

		  add up to 1000:  3min 50sec

HP-29C		  add up to 100:   38sec

		  add up to 1000:  6min 25sec

Remove the Labels for the 12C and 25:

01 STO 00

02 1

03 STO-00

04 R down

05 RCL 00

06 x=0?

07 GTO 10

08 +

09 GTO 02

10 R down

HP-12c old 3xLR44   type: add up to 100:  42sec

HP-12c new 1xCR2032 type: add up to 100:  40sec

HP-25:  	          add up t0 100:  38sec

		          add up to 1000: 6min 25sec



Program 2

01 LBL

02 A

03 STO 8

04 0

05 LBL

06 0

07 RCL 8

08 +

09 g

10 DSZ

11 GTO

12 0

13 RTN

HP-65:	add up to 100:   21sec

	add up to 1000:  3 min 43sec

Same program looks like this on the 29C:

01 LBL 1

02 STO 0

03 0

04 LBL 0

05 RCL 0

06 +

07 DSZ

08 GTO 0

09 RTN

HP-29C: add up to 100:   26sec

	add up to 1000:  4min 26sec

WP-34S: add up to 1000:  1sec

	add up to 10000: 9sec

Conclusions:

Program 1 is (as expected) slower than program 2. From the calculators I ran both programs on, I worked out that it takes about 1.45 times as long as program 2.
Also (and also as expected) the execution time is roughly proportional to the input number. With that information in mind I came up with the following execution time index:

WP-34S:		1

HP-15C LE:	3

HP-33S:	       15

HP-32SII:      28

HP-35S:	       48

HP-42S:	       78

HP-41CV:      176

HP-65:	      248

HP-29C:	      295

HP-25:	      295

HP-12C CR2032:307

HP-12C LR44:  322

HP-15C (old): 490

Comments? Corrections? Additions?

Cheers,
Harald

How about:

001: LBL A

002: # 000

003: RCL+ 00

004: DSZ 00

005: BACK 002

006: RTN

And the results in seconds are:

    mode    type      1,000    10,000

    FAST    real        0.6       5.6

    FAST    integer     0.5       4.9

    SLOW    real        0.8       8.9

    SLOW    integer     0.7       7.5

This was with fresh batteries (my first change in my test unit). With old batteries, the timings were more like the SLOW regardless of mode.

An even more compact solution:

001: LBL A

002: #000

003: RCL+ Y

004: DSZ Y

005: BACK 002

006: RTN

I'd expect the timing to be the same however.

- Pauli

Then there is the clever/cheats' method:

001: LBL A

002: ENTER[^]

003: INC X

004: [times]

005: # 002

006: /

007: RTN

or in integer mode, we can save a step:

001: LBL A

002: ENTER[^]

003: INC X

004: [times]

005: SR 01

006: RTN

The run time for either is essentially zero.

- Pauli

I'll also note that, even though it is faster at basic arithmetic, the WP 34S is slower than the 15C LE for some of the transcendental functions.

- Pauli

Uhm, yes. That wasn't quite the point of the exercise ;)

About your first post. Neat little porgram. I thought about using RCL+. But then wasn't quite sure if all the calculators supported register arithmetic on RCL as well as STO. And since I only wanted to compare them, I didn't bother looking that up.

Is that because they put more emphasis on fast execution rather then accuracy when they designed the algorithms for the 15C?

I should probably use some more complex functions in the test program and then compare the results again.

Edited: 17 Mar 2012, 9:17 p.m.

No, the 15C's algorithms are first rate accuracy wise. The 34S is carrying 39 digits internally as opposed to 10/13 for the 15C. I also haven't attempted to optimise much of the 34S code base for speed -- accuracy and space have been our primary concerns.

- Pauli

"accuracy and space have been our primary concerns."

As it should be :-)

How about adding some of the modern RPL calculators for comparison? I have an HP-48SX at work I can test on Monday.

Also interesting would be programs that use transcendental functions, one that compares the speed of numeric integration and the solver, for calculators that have those.

I remember using the solver or integration function on my (now lost) HP-15C meant staring at a screen flashing "Running" for a while. On the WP34s the answer is nearly instant!

I've never really warmed up to RPL programing. I could test on the 48S, SX and GX, the 28C and S and the 49gII. Maybe I'll write the program for those too.

I agree, timing for advanced functions would be intresting. Any suggestions on what to calculate? Integration and solver would very much limit the number of calculators it can run on though.

Harald

41CL (TURBO50)

to   100     1s

to  1000    13s

to 10000 2m  9s

48SX

to   100     0.93s

to  1000     9.3s

to 10000 1m 43s

50g

to   100     0.53s

to  1000     5.2s

to 10000    53s

Quick attempt for RPL program including measuring the timing:

<< TICKS 0 ROT 1 FOR I I + -1 STEP TICKS 3 ROLL - B->R 8192 / >>

Edited: 18 Mar 2012, 11:02 a.m.

You might be interested in this
info

Edited: 18 Mar 2012, 11:52 a.m.

Seem strange to compare normal programs with compiled C code that do cannot be stopped...

You can use TEVAL and the ad hoc function (Sigma) with HP50G :

TEVAL
Type: Function
Description: For the specified operation, performs the same function as EVAL, and returns the time taken to perform the evaluation as well as the result.

Replace ∑ with Sigma greek character :

<< '&sum;(x=1,1000,x)' EVAL >>

TEVAL

500500

s:0.5833

<< '&sum;(x=1,10000,x)' EVAL >>

TEVAL

50005000

s:.5834

(?!?) quite no difference !

<< '&sum;(x=1,100000,x)' EVAL >>

TEVAL

5000050000

s:.59

Seems incredible but

<< '&sum;(x=1,10000000,x)' EVAL >>

TEVAL

take quite the same time on a real HP50G calc but is much slower on Emu48.

what is this mistery ?!?

Edit :  1 to 1E100 sum give the exact 200 digits answer in less than 0.6 seconds on a real 50G (not on Emu48)

Curiously '&sum;(x=1,100000,x)' TEVAL  dont't work. Looks like a bug 

Edited: 18 Mar 2012, 4:54 p.m. after one or more responses were posted

I suspect it doesn't simply add the numbers, but finds an algebraic solution and then evaluates that.

Or some 'embedded ARM' piece of software ?

With the same rom version,emu48 is much much slower.... And Emu48 knows nothing about ARM on the contrary of HP50G. And i remember that the ROM includes some acceleration process for native ARM device

Edited: 18 Mar 2012, 4:39 p.m.

By adjusting the conditions of the while loop it will stop in exactly 60 seconds.

All these first few benchmarks only demonstrate the raw speed of the underlying hardware. Nonetheless there is a lesson in all that. When you compare the same device speed in their native programming environment they are not quite so impressive. So you can start off with the best and end up with the mediocre. Right.

In fact if this comparison means anything (questionable?), the calculator "speed freaks" should be investing their money on a vintage 1984 HP-71B. A fine machine I might add.

On the HP-42S (with no DSZ) we can use DSE instead, and accept a +0 or two for the sake of brevity:

00 { 18-Byte Prgm }

01 LBL "SUM"

02 0

03 X<>Y

04 LBL 00

05 STO+ ST Y

06 DSE ST X

07 GTO 00

08 +              ; instead of Rv, with less stack corruption

09 END

Computes up to 1000 in 63s on my 42S.

And for the 15C(LE) with no DSE on stack registers, we need one numbered register for the equivalent program:

000 LBL B   ; 42,21,12

001 STO 0   ; 44 0

002 DSE 0   ; 42, 5, 0

004 LBL 1   ; 42,21, 1

005 RCL+ 0  ; 45,40, 0

006 DSE 0   ; 42, 5, 0

007 GTO 1   ; 22 1

008 RTN     ; 43 32