Today, I happened to stumble on a page of the MoHPC that I had never seen before: the Benchmark Results page (MoHPC Benchmark Results). Considering that it was a quick test, I just *had* to try-out the benchmark code on my WP-34s! 😉

I followed the rules, and stayed as close to the original/pseudo-code as possible (no recall arithmetic, no ‘back’). This is what I got:

    Math/overhead:  6911 /679*100 = 1018
    Trigonometry:    240 /40*100  =  600
    Speed/US$:    (2*1018+600)/75 = 3515  (assumes $75 price)

For comparison, the two best scores on the MoHPC page (through HP-49G+) for each test are:

    Math/overhead:  HP-9825A (977), HP-49G+ (643)
    Trigonometry:   HP-49G+ (2535), HP-48G (1350) [SysRPL]
    Speed/US$:      HP-49G+ (2171), HP-48G (1276) [SysRPL]

And based on a quote from the MoHPC Benchmark page:

Quote:

---

The trigonometric algorithms in the handhelds appeared to be more efficient than the those used in the desktops but the desktops calculated trig functions accurate to 12 digits vs. 9 for the early handhelds. On the HP-67/97 handheld accuracy improved to 10 digits and on the HP-41C and RPL calculators, handheld accuracy was comparable to the desktops.
…
The recent handhelds have plenty of horsepower as evidenced by the trigonometric test, but they also have more overhead with larger screens, multiple data types, unlimited stacks, etc. As a result the math results are not as impressive because they spend proportionately more time on overhead.

---

I would observe:
(1) the WP-34s’s Trig benchmark is not as impressive because it is computing the values to *much* higher accuracy,
(2) the WP-34s screams in the Math/Overhead benchmark, and
(3) the WP-34s is an *unmatched* powerhouse of speed and capability for a very, very small price! (I used $75, but you could fairly use a price of $21 + $6 + 6$ = $33 for your HP-30b + cable + overlay!)I love my WP-34s! 😉

Have a good weekend,
Bruce.

There is also a lot of space saving measures going on behind the scenes that are costing performance.

Still, I think it is respectable.

– Pauli

I’ll throw in my own OT score for the firmware running on the 39gII in front of me here (just can’t help myself), and a few more for some of the other speed tests. This is actually the first time I’d ever seen this particular speed test.

Math: 82124/679*100 = 12095
Trig: 15062/40*100 = 37655
Sp/$: (2*12095+37655)/80*100 = 77306

Two others –
NQueens: 1.35s
Addition loop: 680,000 or so

I would observe:
(1) ‘Tis my new baby 🙂 (move aside 10bII+)

TW

Edited: 28 Apr 2012, 3:38 a.m.

I assume these figures are not too far from what an unmodified 30b will be capable of. It uses the same algorithms and should just fare similar if we take the differing operating frequencies into account. Someone willing to try it out?

Math: 5860/679*100 = 863

Trig: 10608/40*100 = 26520

Sp/$: (2*5860+10608)/40*100 = 55820

Edited: 28 Apr 2012, 8:48 a.m.

TW

– Pauli

TW

But what language did you use for your 39GII benchmark ? Could you give the sources of your programs ?

I retested with the exact source I have below just to make it as consistent as possible. Timing was done using ‘Time(<progname>)’ as the input where a time was required, and done using a check against the execution value where a manual stop was required.

The programming language on the 39gII is definitely an algebraic style language, but there is definitely influences from other places. It should be very easy and readable for just about anyone.

The NQueens was kept identical to the old “39gs” program basically as I wanted a comparison (~5m06s for those interested IIRC). I suspect it would go faster if modified to be a better structure.

EXPORT NQUEENS()
BEGIN
 R:=8;
 L1:=MAKELIST(0,X,1,R,1);
 S:=0;
 X:=0;
 REPEAT
   X:=X+1;
   L1(X):=R;
   REPEAT
     S:=S+1;
     Y:=X;
     WHILE Y>1 DO
       Y:=Y-1;
       T:=L1(X)-L1(Y);
       IF T==0 OR X-Y==ABS(T) THEN
         Y:=0;
         L1(X):=L1(X)-1;
         WHILE L1(X)==0 DO
           X:=X-1;
           L1(X):=L1(X)-1;
         END;
       END;
     END;
   UNTIL Y==1 END;
 UNTIL X==R END;
 S;
END;

The addition loop can be done like this, (stopped at 1 min with ON/C). 

EXPORT ADDLOOP()
BEGIN
  A:=0;
  REPEAT
    A:=A+1;
  UNTIL 0;
END;

Math test and trig test have ‘wonderful’ algebraic nesting… 🙁

EXPORT MATHTEST(a)
BEGIN
  T:=Ticks+1000*a;
  N:=0;
  A:=1012340;
  B:=2.345;
  REPEAT
    SQRT(((((A*B)-B)/A)*B)/3.5);
    N:N+1;
  UNTIL Ticks>T;
  N;
END;

EXPORT TRIGTEST(a) BEGIN T:=Ticks+1000*a; N:=0; REPEAT e^LN(ATAN(TAN(ACOS(COS(ASIN(SIN(56.26))))))); N:N+1; UNTIL Ticks>T; N; END;

Also, I believe I was remembering the loop test value incorrectly last night. I am seeing around 640,000 right now after several runs.

With these exact sources, I get these results after 5 runs averaged. I assumed radians mode. Degree mode loses about 100 or so over a minute.

Math: 85389/679*100 = 12576
Trig: 15198/40*100 = 37995
Sp/$: (2*12576+37995)/80*100 = 78934

Addition Loop Test: ~640,000 NQueens: 1.32s

TW 

Edited: 28 Apr 2012, 1:48 p.m.

TW

As a Pascal programmer,I like it. Very clear and readable (” there is definitely influences from other places” : Modula and Oberon ? ) I always loved Pascal, because it has a very logical syntax and can be compiled in one pass only. Those who have worked with big projects in C or Pascal (Delphi) can understand. Time compilation is much faster in Pascal (but i dont work in C since long time so perhaps compilers are now betters)

EDIT 2 : The 39GII programs are (without variables declarations and MAKELIST) exactly like in Modula or Oberon. There are only an (unnecesary ?) END; after the UNTIL (copy mistake ?) And the == which is = in modula/oberon

What are the N; or S; without command in the programs ? Just to “push” the results in the “history” (kind of stack)?

EDIT 1 :

here is an HP Pascal version wich need more BEGIN/END statement unlike Modula

Program NQueens;

Uses SystemHP,MathsHP_49;

VAR R,S,X,Y, T : Integer; L1 : Array [1..8] of Integer;

BEGIN R:=8; S:=0; X:=0; REPEAT X:=X+1; L1[X]:=R; REPEAT S:=S+1; Y:=X; WHILE Y>1 DO BEGIN Y:=Y-1; T:=L1[X]-L1[Y]; IF T=0 OR X-Y=T OR Y-X=T THEN BEGIN Y:=0; L1[X]:=L1[X]-1; WHILE L1[X]=0 DO BEGIN X:=X-1; L1[X]:=L1[X]-1; END; END; END; UNTIL Y=1; UNTIL X=R; END.

0.895 sec 928 Bytes

There is a bug in HPPASCAL with ABS on integer.

compilation give :

function Abs (x: integer): integer;
begin
  asm
    A=R1
    D1=A
    D1=D1+ 5
    A=DAT1 A
    D1=D1- 5
    LC(5) #7FFFF
    ?A<C A
    GOYES NoNeg
    A=-A A
    :NoNeg
    DAT1=A
  end;
end;

=> Instruction inconnue dans “?A<C A” à la ligne 12

(unknow command in line 12 “?A<C A” )

I dont know at all Saturn code. could somenone help ?

Edited: 30 Apr 2012, 4:12 a.m.