Some time ago I came across a youtube video in which as a benchmark test is suggested to calculate the intervall of e^x^3 between 0 and 6. The result is 5,96 E91. It takes about 1 second for the HP Prime, it takes more than 1 min for the HP 50G.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHRsvSTGiBc
I used this test for several other calculators (it takes about 4 seconds for the new Casio CG50 to accomplish this task, several smaller scientific calculators need more than 1 minute) and tried some variants for larger calculators:
It is possible to calculate the intervall of e^x^3 between 0 and 10,5 with the HP 50G (which takes several minutes but finally succeedes as expected, because the resultat is under E499 (2,22 E498).
I was astonished, that the HP Prime could calculate the intervall of e^x^3 only between 0 and 8,9  the result being 6,14 E303. This is still the case with the newest firmware release. It should be able to do the same as the HP 50G because the limit is also E499. Why does it fail?
The TI NSpire can calculate the intervall of e^x^3 between 0 and 13 (result: 2,75 E951) quite fast. It's limit is E999.
How long does it take for the DM 42 to caculate the intervall of e^x^3 between 0 and 6? Is it as fast as the HP Prime or TI NSpire?
Can the intervall of e^x^3 between 0 and 22 be calculated with the DM 42?
The result should be 2,81 E6000 (that is the result shown by https://matheguru.com/rechner/integral).
How long does it take to calculate this interval?
Benchmark test e^x^3
Benchmark test e^x^3
Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.
Re: Benchmark test e^x^3
On the DM42 on battery power (so, the slow mode):
For interval of 0..6 => about 23 seconds
For interval of 0..13 => about 1112 seconds.
For interval of 0..22 => about 2223 seconds (value=1.61E4621)
So, pretty quick!
Edit after more posts): Eps used was 1E06
For interval of 0..6 => about 23 seconds
For interval of 0..13 => about 1112 seconds.
For interval of 0..22 => about 2223 seconds (value=1.61E4621)
So, pretty quick!
Edit after more posts): Eps used was 1E06
Last edited by rprosperi on Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bob p
DM42: β00071 & 00282, DM41X: β00071 & 00656, DM10L: 071/100
DM42: β00071 & 00282, DM41X: β00071 & 00656, DM10L: 071/100
Re: Benchmark test e^x^3
How fast is "quite fast"? Just for curiousity ...
DM42 SN: 00041 β
WP 43S running on this device
HP35, HP45, ..., HP35S, WP 34S, WP 31S, DM16L
WP 43S running on this device
HP35, HP45, ..., HP35S, WP 34S, WP 31S, DM16L

 Posts: 17
 Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:09 am
Re: Benchmark test e^x^3
Some more data:
On battery (Accuracy factor = 0.01):
0..6 = 5.9640E91 (<2 s)
0..13 = 2.7549E951 (<4 s)
0..22 = 1.6059E4621 (<9 s)
0..24 = 2.8145E6000 (<9 s)
0..25 = Out of range
On USB (Accuracy factor = 0.01):
0..6 = 5.9640E91 (<1 s)
0..13 = 2.7549E951 (<2 s)
0..22 = 1.6059E4621 (<3 s)
0..24 = 2.8145E6000 (<3 s)
0..25 = Out of range
Accuracy factor (On USB):
0..24 (acc=1) = 3.638951888E5803 (<1 s)
0..24 (acc=0.1) = 2.809107013E6000 (<2 s)
0..24 (acc=0.01) = 2.814494035E6000 (<3 s)
0..24 (acc=0.001) = 2.814459733E6000 (<6 s)
0..24 (acc=0.0001) = 2.814459733E6000 (<6 s)
0..24 (acc=0.00001) = 2.814459726E6000 (<12 s)
0..24 (acc=0.000001) = 2.814459726E6000 (<12 s)
0..24 (acc=1E10) = 2.814459726E6000 (<23 s) More digits: 2.814459725921252477432075662808156
0..24 (acc=1E20) = (Stuck in a loop) Edit: Actually I did not had the patience to wait enough, it is not looping, it takes around 6 minutes. Final result: 2.814459725921296162203929219415341E6000
In comparison with Wolfram result:
2.8144597259212961622039292556760324066E6000
2.814459725921296162203929219415341E6000
On battery (Accuracy factor = 0.01):
0..6 = 5.9640E91 (<2 s)
0..13 = 2.7549E951 (<4 s)
0..22 = 1.6059E4621 (<9 s)
0..24 = 2.8145E6000 (<9 s)
0..25 = Out of range
On USB (Accuracy factor = 0.01):
0..6 = 5.9640E91 (<1 s)
0..13 = 2.7549E951 (<2 s)
0..22 = 1.6059E4621 (<3 s)
0..24 = 2.8145E6000 (<3 s)
0..25 = Out of range
Accuracy factor (On USB):
0..24 (acc=1) = 3.638951888E5803 (<1 s)
0..24 (acc=0.1) = 2.809107013E6000 (<2 s)
0..24 (acc=0.01) = 2.814494035E6000 (<3 s)
0..24 (acc=0.001) = 2.814459733E6000 (<6 s)
0..24 (acc=0.0001) = 2.814459733E6000 (<6 s)
0..24 (acc=0.00001) = 2.814459726E6000 (<12 s)
0..24 (acc=0.000001) = 2.814459726E6000 (<12 s)
0..24 (acc=1E10) = 2.814459726E6000 (<23 s) More digits: 2.814459725921252477432075662808156
0..24 (acc=1E20) = (Stuck in a loop) Edit: Actually I did not had the patience to wait enough, it is not looping, it takes around 6 minutes. Final result: 2.814459725921296162203929219415341E6000
In comparison with Wolfram result:
2.8144597259212961622039292556760324066E6000
2.814459725921296162203929219415341E6000
Re: Benchmark test e^x^3
@ Walter:
The TI NSpire needs about 2 Sec for the calculation.
The TI NSpire needs about 2 Sec for the calculation.
Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.
Re: Benchmark test e^x^3
@ StreakyCobra
Thanks a lot!
Thanks a lot!
Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.