|
|
|
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
Speed Tests... CFX v the Rest
Here are the results of some performance comparisons between Casio CFX9850G, Casio Algebra FX2.0, Sharp EL9600, Hewlett Packard 38G, TI82 and TI83+ models.
The total times (in seconds) for all four tests were:
CFX | 74s | |
FX2.0 | 86s | |
EL9600 | 249s | |
HP38G | 197s | |
TI82 | 76s | |
TI83+ | 76s | |
The following four tests were used to benchmark the execution speeds of some common calculator functions. Should the time to enter instructions/keypresses also be factored in? The individual test results are below!
INDIVIDUAL TESTS
FUNCTION GRAPHING
- The Test. With both axes scaled from -10 to 10, the calculators drew the 10 functions shown below:
- The Results (in seconds):
CFX | 37s | |
FX2.0 | 39s | |
EL9600 | 76s | |
HP38G | 60s | |
TI82 | 38s | |
TI83+ | 37s | |
STATISTICS
- The Test. Bivariate statistics. Before the test began, one list was filled with integers 1, 2, 3, ...., 200 and a second filled with 200 random numbers betwen 0 and 1. The test time was the sum of
the individual times to complete these operations:
- Draw a scatterdiagram
- Calculate the coefficients of the least squares regression line and correlation
- Draw the least squares regression line
- Calculate the bivariate summary statistics
- The Results (in seconds):
CFX | 13s | |
FX2.0 | 12s | |
EL9600 | 40s | |
HP38G | 61s | |
TI82 | 18s | |
TI83+ | 25s | |
CALCULUS
- The Test. Evaluate the sum of the three integrals shown below.
- The Results (in seconds):
CFX | 4s | |
FX2.0 | 5s | |
EL9600 | 63s | |
HP38G | 47s | |
TI82 | 4s | |
TI83+ | 6s | |
PROGRAMS/MATRICES
- The Test. Execute a simple program which loops 200 times, in each loop displaying the number of the loop, multiplying two 2x2 matrices (filled with single digit integers) and storing the result in
a third 2x2 matrix (no display of matrices).
- The Results (in seconds):
CFX | 20s | |
FX2.0 | 30s | |
EL9600 | 70s | |
HP38G | 29s | |
TI82 | 16s | |
TI83+ | 8s | |
|
|
|