I am currently evaluating various hardware and computer languages performance and was curious to see how my HP 50g would fare under the circumstances.
In the normal, plain ordinary RPL, I wrote the following program:
<< -> i j << i j *
TIME 0. 1 j FOR a 1 i FOR b b i / a +
D->R SIN + NEXT NEXT >>
DROP TIME HMS- HMS-> -3600. * / >>
(this little program is similar to the one I used on other implementation, and although it returns nothing as far as calculation, it adds running total so as to defeat an optimizer available in other implementation that would just skip all computations after noticing I am doing nothing of value. This code is functionally similar to the ones used in other systems).
The little program gets the time at the start of the looping phase, and again at the end of it, the total number of iterations is divided by the difference in time, yielding a rough "iterations per second" rating.
So far so good.
The result for the HP 50g is a rather disappointing 15.36 when i and j are set to 10 (i.e. 100 iterations total).
It is disappointing because my vintage HP48SX (with a 2 MHz CPU) returns 16.63 ! How can it be faster than the 75 MHz ARM CPU of the HP 50? Surely the Saturn emulation is not eating away all those cycles?
I have other programs (useful ones, rather than silly do nothing benchmark) and those run significantly faster (5 times or so) on the HP 50 than on the HP48, as they should.
What am I missing here?
In the normal, plain ordinary RPL, I wrote the following program:
<< -> i j << i j *
TIME 0. 1 j FOR a 1 i FOR b b i / a +
D->R SIN + NEXT NEXT >>
DROP TIME HMS- HMS-> -3600. * / >>
(this little program is similar to the one I used on other implementation, and although it returns nothing as far as calculation, it adds running total so as to defeat an optimizer available in other implementation that would just skip all computations after noticing I am doing nothing of value. This code is functionally similar to the ones used in other systems).
The little program gets the time at the start of the looping phase, and again at the end of it, the total number of iterations is divided by the difference in time, yielding a rough "iterations per second" rating.
So far so good.
The result for the HP 50g is a rather disappointing 15.36 when i and j are set to 10 (i.e. 100 iterations total).
It is disappointing because my vintage HP48SX (with a 2 MHz CPU) returns 16.63 ! How can it be faster than the 75 MHz ARM CPU of the HP 50? Surely the Saturn emulation is not eating away all those cycles?
I have other programs (useful ones, rather than silly do nothing benchmark) and those run significantly faster (5 times or so) on the HP 50 than on the HP48, as they should.
What am I missing here?