![]() |
48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - Printable Version +- HP Forums (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum) +-- Forum: HP Museum Forums (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: Old HP Forum Archives (https://archived.hpcalc.org/museumforum/forum-2.html) +--- Thread: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison (/thread-255876.html) |
48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - John Colvin - 11-16-2013 Just for the heck of it, I ran a speed test of a simple user RPL
I could be wrong, but I read somewhere that the 49G+ uses an ARM Edited: 16 Nov 2013, 12:23 a.m.
Re: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - Matt Kernal - 11-16-2013 On the 49G+, try unchecking "Approx", found under MODE | CAS.
Re: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - John Colvin - 11-16-2013 I tried unchecking approximate mode and ran
This article at HPcalc.org (http://www.hpcalc.org/hp49gplus.php) is Re: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - Kiyoshi Akima - 11-16-2013 I don't have a 49 but my understanding is that the 50g is more-or-less the same hardware so I tried this on the 50g. It's also my understanding that in general the ARM emulating a Saturn is faster than the Saturn. But I've been known to be wrong... With both Numeric and Approx checked, my UserRPL program approximated 250! as 3.2E492 in about 0.8 seconds. With both Numeric and Approx unchecked, the program generated a 493-digit integer in about 5.1 seconds. My 48SX approximated it in about 19000 ticks while my 48GX did it in about 13000 ticks (2.3 and 1.6 seconds).
Here's the program I used: <<
For exact mode, remove the decimal point.
Re: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - Han - 11-16-2013 Quote:
The introduction of "integer" object types for exact calculations from the 49G and onward is the reason you see any "slower" performance. The HP48 uses algorithms which take only "real" input types. On the 49G and later models, there are additional routines to handle "integer" inputs and these routines would run at the same speed or slower on the HP48. So if you are doing pure numerical calculations and integer solutions are unnecessary, make sure to have all real numbers ending in a decimal point (the auto-conversion itself can create a lot of overhead). That is, instead of 4 5 +, use 4. 5. +
Re: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - John Colvin - 11-17-2013 My factorial program:
With both numeric and approx. checked, the execution time on the
I don't mind the speed difference. If I want a program to run fast Re: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - Han - 11-23-2013 Quote: That is not the reason for slower computation. In fact, the HP49G+ is generally much faster than the actual Saturn calculators. The reason 50! is slow on the HP49G+ is because there is a separate "exact" real number algorithm as opposed to the original non-exact real numbers.
When you unchecked approximate mode, you enabled the exact algorithm, which is slower. Try 50! vs 50.0! and you will see a huge difference in approximate mode.
Re: 48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison - Mike Morrow - 11-23-2013 Quote:
Almost all of the functions provided on the 49G+ and 50G are coded in the original Saturn language, which runs on the calculator's Saturn emulator, which runs on the ARM9. The overhead of the Saturn emulator and the function coding not being in native ARM9 is what makes the 49G+/50G much much slower (and thus, much more energy hungry) than had native ARM9 coding been used. Still, the 49G+/50G executes its functions typically two or three times faster than would a 48GX.
|