The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - 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: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] (/thread-52450.html) |
The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Valentin Albillo - 02-25-2004 Hi all, For some time now, I've been reading in this forum, the comp.sys.hp48 newsgroup and several other such places lots and lots of posts about the new HP49G+, both pointing out its deficiencies and its virtues. Among the later, the one most frequently mentioned is its "amazing speed", or that it is "incredibly fast", and many other such praises. However, some actual running times posted here and there I find somewhat contradictory, specially when confronting posted speeds with that of the most venerable Saturn CPU holder of all, the HP-71B itself. Now, what amazes me is this: first of all, I do not own an HP49G+ (nor any other HP48/49 models for that matter) and thus I may be wrong on this, but I believe that both the oldest HP-71B and the newest HP49G+ boast Saturn CPUs, (physical in one case, emulated in the other), and so ...
Considering both facts together, I fully expected the 49G+ to be between 6.15 times faster than the 71B at the very least, and probably more like 10 times faster. However, some recent timings posted here and there resulted in factors around 3x, far from the expected 6x-10x range, so I would like to settle down this matter for good, in order to ascertain the real speed of the 49G+ when compared to the 71B, and if it's indeed inferior to 6x, to ask for the reasons why this is so against expectations. To that effect, I would like to ask that those of you who own a 49G+ and who are willing to do me this favour, please run the following test examples. Of course, discussing as we are such powerful machines, no willy-nilly "ASIN(ACOS(ATAN(SIN(COS(TAN(9))))))" test will do, nor some simple loops or computing some ancillary expression. We are after timings for powerful, complicated algorithms and that's what we shall try here. Bear with me:
That's all. Please run these tests as stated, making extra-sure that no symbolic features or 'algebraic-aware' simplifications are used (just numerical results), and post here the values obtained and the time. Of course this is no Aesop's fable and I know that the Hare will easily win this time, only I want to know by how much and why that much. Thank you very much in advance, and
Best regards from V.
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Art Litka - 02-25-2004 Valentin,
Your challenging comparison test is of great interest to me and I plan to do it with both the 71B and the 49G+. Should I use the math module with the 71B or not for these comparisons? Since I have not used it for a long time I do not really remember which functions are native to the basic machine. As for the 49G+, I'm still on the learning curve and will use your challenge as an aid to better utilizing its capabilities. Thanks!
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Valentin Albillo - 02-25-2004 Hi, Art: Art posted: "Should I use the math module with the 71B or not for these comparisons?" Definitely. If you've been following my posts this last year, you're probably aware that I do not consider the 71B and its Math ROM as two separate, independent entities, but rather a 71B isn't "whole" for me unless it has its Math ROM plugged-in. That may seem a little extreme on my part, but there are a number of very good reasons for me to consider it that way. So, everytime I say or write "HP-71B" it always includes the Math ROM just as if it was built-in in origin. Anyway, you don't need to run these test on a 71B at all, that I already did. The results for the 49G+ are the ones I'm after. :-)
Best of lucks, then. Be assured that the examples are Thanks a lot for your interest and
Best regards from V.
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Arnaud Amiel - 02-25-2004 One of the reason the 49G+ is not so fats is that the CAS and exact arithmetics can't really be fully disabled if you use USR RPL: On some functions, the 49 spends more time checking the conditions under which it has to execute this function than actually executing this function. I will however try to run these tests and keep you updated.
Arnaud
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Arnaud Amiel - 02-25-2004 Here are the results for the 49g+(49G) Matrix operations: Note that the 48/49 keeps the arguments in memory so these are not done in place
Polynom roots:
Integrate and Solve:
Double integrals: I get I=1.13509856804 in 9.27s(19.22) (3 decimal precision)
I get I=3.9999873874 in 237s(550) (3 decimal precision) Note that the 49G has a 4MHz saturn. It would be nice if someone did the same on a 4MHz 48GX. My 48 is dead now but I believe it would be faster than the 49 as it does not do as many checks. I also want to note that nearly nowhere for the integration is RPL used, all is in algebric. And for the others I believe you compare ASM in the 71 math ROM with sysRPL for the 48/49. Maybe you should time a simple program to compare speed of execution of 71 BASIC with 49 USR RPL I hope all of this helps and am looking forward to comments on these results.
Arnaud Edited: 25 Feb 2004, 3:15 p.m.
I'll try on my 48GX tomorrow... - R Lion (Spain) - 02-25-2004 ...if nobody post before...
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Doug Rohm - 02-25-2004 Arnaud, I was going to use Joe Horn's timer but wanted to use the same thing you're using.
Doug
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - J-F Garnier - 02-25-2004 I couldn't resist ... As you compare the venerable HP-71B with a modern emulator-based machine, I think it's fair to also compare the last one to my Emu71 HP-71B emulator: 1. 40x40 matrix multiply: 8s 2. 100th-degree equation solver: 31s 3. Integrate & Solve combined: 0.3s 4. Double integrals: 1.5s 5. Triple integrals: 18s Of course, I got the same numerical results. All tests done on a 2.3GHz Celeron in a Windows2000 Comand Box in full screen mode, and with Emu71 fast option ('Emu71 /f' command). J-F
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Arnaud Amiel - 02-25-2004 I usually use TEVAL. However for long times it seems to be buggy so in that case I do something like << TIME 'Q' STO EVAL TIME Q HMS- 'Q' PURGE >> However TEVAL is not available on a 48. There I used to use TIM from Mika H...(can't spell it correctly so I don't spell it at all).
Arnaud
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Garth Wilson - 02-26-2004 I have no experience with the 48 or 49, but have used my 71 a lot for things the more modern supercalculators were not made to do. On many occasions I have downloaded a set of 8192 points from a Philips digital oscilloscope to do an FFT on them and print the results in graphs showing amplitude and phase. The 71 was connected to other pieces of equipment at the same time.
The 8K complex FFT took about 40 minutes; but what the heck-- I had to take lunch or put out another fire anyway. I have been extremely pleased with the design of the 71; but it might have been better to do the FFT with fewer digits. With the number of points you normally put in and the fact that they'll typically come from something like an 8-bit oscilloscope, there's no need for 12-digit calculations plus three internal guard digits. I'm sure they could have made it faster.
Re: The Turtle (HP-71B) and the Hare (HP49G+) [LONG] - Ángel Martin - 02-26-2004 Ah, you've opened the gates to PC-Based emulation here... so let me add a couple of data points:- this time using V41 R8 in turbo mode, alas comparing an emulated coconut (with Advantage) to all of the above!
Example 1.- 23x23 Matrix ops (sorry, no larger is possible)
returns the correct value in 7.56 seconds. Interesting, isn't it? and here's the program listing:
LBL "VA2" I will, of course, pass on the opportunity to calculate the 100 roots of V's monster polynomial... even though I've written a program that CAN do it, for any degree, it still takes about 2-4 seconds per root (which it isn't bad at all if you think about it)
Best, ÁM
Thanks! Another tester NEEDED, for validation ! - Valentin Albillo - 02-26-2004 Hi, Arnaud:
Thank you *very much* for your extensive results to my
However, in order to draw valid conclusions and comment
Of course, the more results set received, the better. But
As for your comment: "I believe
I am only using what the 71B's got. In the case of integration, most of the time is spent in the user-defined
If the 48/49/49G+ makes use of System RPL or User RPL, I can't tell. Logic dictates that it should use ASM routines as well for speed and convenience, right ? I believed that most mathematical algorithms were ported straight from the 71B Math ROM version, which is written for the same Saturn CPU they have, with minor changes for memory and exception Also, if you suggest that I use instead a BASIC loop versus User RPL, presumably in order not to handicap User RPL, why should I do so ? I could use FORTH instead if ASM is the problem here, but why use the slowest possibility if the machine can do it in ASM ? Can't the 48/49/49G+ use it as well ? I'd be surprised it that's indeed the case.
Besides, the HP-71B is a machine specifically designed and
That's its main strength and that's what I want to test against. BASIC loops or 'simple' BASIC programs mean not Thanks again and best regards from V.
Edited: 26 Feb 2004, 6:10 a.m.
Results on the 48GX - R Lion (Spain) - 02-26-2004 These are the results on a 48GX(plus 128kb and 1M RAM cards) running with MetaKernel. Time has been mesured with TEVAL (from Erable): 5.2 2.4 0.8 Polynom roots: It takes 563s and after testing I get (0.999999994032,2.066E-12) Integrate and Solve: I get X=1.20391530969 after 36.5s (5 decimal precision) Double integrals: I get I=1.49999542236 after 6s (3 decimal precision) I get I=1.13509856804 in 17.5s (3 decimal precision)
I get I=3.9999873874 in 483s (3 decimal precision)
Re: Thanks! Another tester NEEDED, for validation ! - Arnaud Amiel - 02-26-2004 I agree with all your points but because I don't know the 71 at all I can't say. I am looking forward to the 48 results that should illustrate a bit of what I am saying here. I don't know much about the hp28 but I believe it is 2MHz Saturn and uses RPL but with less objects than the 48, maybe results for the 28 would be interesting as well. I'll keep watching this thread. I believe that when you have written your conclusions they should be archived in the articles part of this forum.
Arnaud
Re: Results for HP-71X running on 48/49 - HrastProgrammer - 02-26-2004 I measured these times on my HP-71X emulator running on HP-49G. Here are the results:
1. Matrix Operations:
The times on HP-48GX are the same (+/- 0.1 seconds). This is from 3 to 5 times faster compared to the real HP-71B and, more or less, show how would HP-71B run if it would be built using HP-48/49 hardware. HP-71X has been used in 33.5K RAM configuration with ports 1..3 CLAIMed and port 4 containing the MATH ROM.
Re: Thanks! Another tester NEEDED, for validation ! - Doug Rohm - 02-26-2004 These are the HP-49G+ times in seconds for the following dimensions and operations. My numbers coincide with Arnaud's numbers very closely. Let me know if you need any other calculations done. I also have a 49G, 48GX, 42S, 32SII, 33S, and a 28S. Doug
Edited: 27 Feb 2004, 1:01 a.m. after one or more responses were posted
Re: Results for HP-71X running on 48/49 - V-PN - 02-26-2004 Could you kindly compile ALL the timings presented in this forum in one post, please?! Hi Doug! What does an HP28S do on these tests? - Gene - 02-26-2004 I think it would be good to see.
Gene
Re: Results for HP-71X running on 48/49 - HrastProgrammer - 02-27-2004 There are no HP-49G+/HP-71X results because I haven't tested HP-71X on HP-49G+ and I don't believe it will work on 49G+ because many things regarding port management, timer etc. have been changed and are incompatible with HP-48GX/49G. I don't have any plans to support it in my emulators for now ...
|