Re: Which TI should I get?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Which TI should I get?
On 11 Jan 1999 04:17:30 GMT, stl137@aol.com (STL137) wrote:
><< [Condensed list:]
>PRIME6: PRIME6B: FCTR(ASM) FCTR.LIB(ASM): FACTOR(ASM):
>FACTNUMS(URPL)
>9876511 (prime) 17 sec 14 sec 0.6 sec .4 sec 1.4 sec
>11.0 sec
>369758771 (6661*55511) 36 sec 31 sec 1.1 sec 2.3 sec 2.0 sec
>23.6 sec
>1000000007 (prime) 2 min 51 sec 2 min 21 sec 0.9 sec 0.6 sec 1.8 sec 1 min
>58.0 sec
>17439280249 (55511*314159) 5 min 5 sec 4 min 13 sec 1.9 sec 4.7 sec 3.4
>sec 3 min 30.6 sec>>
>Let me comment on the times found. You'll notice that of COURSE the ASM
>programs are blazingly fast for the factorization. However.... (read on)
><<All HP48 tests were done on an HP48GX with a 3.93 MHz CPU and 57.3k of user
>memory free. Timings were found by Mika Heiskanen's TIM program, which is
>the most accurate (to 1/8192 of a second) program timer for the HP48.>>
>Wish I had one for my TI. I have my trusty stopwatch.
>Anyways, the HP processor runs at 4Mhz. TI processors run at 2, but they're
>built for 6. When you divide my PRIME6 times in half (to simulate 4Mhz),
you'll
>see that they are FASTER than the User RPL program. That's my algorithm and
>TI-BASIC swiftness at work. The other programs are ASM.
Uhh, STL, the TI runs at 6 Mhz. Making your pride and joy much slower
by your standards. That's your algorithm and TI slowness at work.
Like I've been saying all along, a TI calculator is NOT the tool for
number crunching.
Further, we can see that the TI is much slower than an HP in this
case. But my claim still stands that overall a TI is a faster calc to
use. But using your worthless program it is slower.
Follow-Ups:
References: