35S Benchmark test



#7

I ran the benchmark tests from the page on this forum here. and got some odd results.

The 33S program fitted to the 35S ran very slow, about 471 seconds on my stopwatch. I read there is probably some internal work because of the vector math function added. It might add some overhead. OK I can accept this, it makes sense to me.

Then for grins I converted the 41/42 program to the 35S. 323 seconds. Slow but not as slow!?! I dug out the 33S and it runs it's test in 129 seconds. All to my stop watch and skills.

From the chart on the forum page, there are the following times:

42S 425 sec.

32S 262 sec.

32SII 344 sec.

And my timer:

33S 129 sec.

35S/33S 417 sec.

35S/42S 323 sec.

Next is to put the 42S version on the 33S. I'm guessing it should be faster if it fits.


#8

Hi Ralph,

the 41/42 version of the benchmark was already tested on the 33S by Gerson, with some modificatios of course, with 251 seconds.

The main reason for the different versions is the way how the calculators handle indirect addressing and the fastest way to increment or decrement variables. Considering the new concept of the 35S, I guess it is necessary to make an implementation especially for this calculator. As soon as the 35S is available in Germany, I will try it out and add the result to the data base.

Are you sure with the 42S result? In the table you will find the 42S with 732 sec (fast mode: 362 sec).

Edited: 29 July 2007, 6:29 a.m. after one or more responses were posted


#9

Thanks. I didn't find the conversion but it was getting late last night. You are correct on the time for the 42S. I didn't search the page, just eyeballed it. And misread or typed, common for me. I know it's blazing fast on my HP4705 Pocket PC.

I think the use of the two indirect register variables, I&J plus using the ISG & DSE commands over the math make the 42 version run faster on the 35S. Given the calculator is said to check whether the math is conventional or vector.

The 42 code went in almost as written. I put a little bit in the front to set the index range so to not have to do it manually. Probably added a second or two.

I find these tests fascinating. For my use, my program runs at the same speed on the 33 or 35 as far as I can tell.

#10

Ralph,

Can you post both your 35s versions, or at least the fastest one? Just for reference.

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at these old threads:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv016.cgi?read=106865

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv016.cgi?read=107447

I've noticed Xerxes's article include a Lua version, but I wasn't able to run it in HP-Lua. Has anyone tried it?

Regards,

Gerson.

Edited: 27 July 2007, 9:28 a.m.


#11

Here is the 42 version placed on the 35S
T003-T008 make sure the indirect registers are allocated in case I have reset things previously.


	35S
LN=28 CK=53FC
T001 LBL T
T002 CLVAR
T003 9
T004 STO I
T005 1
T006 STO (I)
T007 0
T008 STO I
T009 8
T010 STO R

LN=24 CK=FF6C
U001 LBL U
U002 RCL I
U003 RCL R
U004 X=Y?
U005 GTO Y001
U006 ISG I
U007 DEG
U008 STO (I)

LN=15 CK=7ECA
V001 LBL V
V002 ISG S
V003 DEG
V004 RCL I
V005 STO J

LN=51 CK=8CB6
W001 LBL W
W002 DSE J
W003 DEG
W004 RCL J
W005 X=0?
W006 GTO U001
W007 RCL (I)
W008 RCL (J)
W009 -
W010 X=0?
W011 GTO X001
W012 ABS
W013 RCL I
W014 RCL J
W015 -
W016 X<>Y?
W017 GTO W001

LN=15 CK=BB97
X001 LBL X
X002 DSE (I)
X003 GTO V001
X004 DSE I
X005 GTO X001

LN=9 CK=DC18
Y001 LBL Y
Y002 RCL S
Y003 RTN


#12

I have added your program to the list as the best solution so far. Thank you for testing.

Edited: 29 July 2007, 4:27 p.m.

#13

Hi Gerson,

Can you explain the problem with HPLua please? I led from that the Lua version is usable for all lua interpreters.


#14

Hi Xerxes,

By what I can remember, I reset the calculator after waiting for one minute or so. I'll try again later.

Regards,

Gerson.


#15

The Lua version on the Casio ClassPad takes 110 seconds if you use the 100 iterations in the original listing. On what calculator did you test it?


#16

Hi Xerxes,

HP-50g (HPLua version 0.4) -> 1000 iterations in 4 min 3.5 sec. That's 0.2435 seconds per iteration.

Regards,

Gerson.


#17

Thanks Gerson.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  HP-42S ESD self-test Yriarte 2 360 10-24-2013, 09:08 AM
Last Post: Yriarte
  Yet another benchmark port on the wiki: Savage Pier Aiello 35 2,354 09-26-2013, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Pier Aiello
  So I took a test with my Prime today ... kris223 12 984 09-25-2013, 07:19 PM
Last Post: kris223
  A brand new calculator benchmark: "middle square method seed test" Pier Aiello 25 1,741 09-13-2013, 01:58 PM
Last Post: Pier Aiello
  New community-maintained version of "Calculators benchmark: add loop" Pier Aiello 20 1,595 09-12-2013, 02:42 AM
Last Post: Pier Aiello
  Concern about Voyager keyboard test Matt Agajanian 2 424 08-30-2013, 07:56 PM
Last Post: Matt Agajanian
  Voyager Self Test Mike (Stgt) 5 531 05-16-2013, 03:28 PM
Last Post: Mike (Stgt)
  Physics Test Howard Owen 37 2,222 01-24-2013, 03:33 AM
Last Post: Csaba Tizedes (Hungary)
  Calculator Speed Benchmark (Add Loop) Thomas Chrapkiewicz 2 393 01-20-2013, 11:24 AM
Last Post: Thomas Chrapkiewicz
  Help test an iOS calculator Tod 36 2,115 06-10-2012, 08:14 PM
Last Post: Tod

Forum Jump: