Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- benchmarks:four_op_and_accuracy [2013/09/13 15:49]
pier4r
+++ benchmarks:four_op_and_accuracy [2013/09/13 15:52] (current)
pier4r
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Calc bench: Four operators (FO) ======
+**The idea** \\
+There are a lot of benchmarks for calculators and computers, but so far the popular ones are:
+  * [[benchmarks:savage|Savage benchmark]] ( See also (([[resources:bestofdiscussions|Entries in the best of list]].)) )
+  * [[benchmarks:nqueens|Nqueens with n=8]]
+  * [[benchmarks:addloop|Max sum in one minute]]
+  * [[benchmarks:ultranaiveprimes|Find primes in a naive way]]
+Nquees tests mainly memory and addition-subtraction operators. The savage one is more complex and math related, but the results are scattered everywhere (Feel free to gather them and do a wiki page about it! Oh, we have already done that) plus it accounts "only" the accuracy ((As if it is not important! Is a main topic on computation!)) so we don't have execution times. The summation test is really simple as well the find primes, even if the latter involves more operators. Moreover a test should be simple, else the userbase won't do it. (See the poor [[benchmarks:middlesquare|middle square method test]] )
+So, why do we not do a simple benchmark involving the four operations (plus one, the square root) to check both the speed on simple operations and the accuracy? About accuracy, read below.
+**The pseudocode**
+<code>
+input: given an n
+----
+sum = 0;
+b = 0; c = 0;
+for a:=1 to n do {
+  //to avoid optimizations by smarter compilers
+  //trick them with new variables
+  b:= a;
+  c:= a;
+  sum:= sum + squareRoot(b*c)/a; //it's a sum+1 from the simbolic point of view.
+}
+print sum
+</code>
+**What do we check?** \\
+Both times of execution, for a given n, and accuracy (the result should be: n itself) in terms of relative error |result-n|/n. Some arguments on the [[benchmarks:nqueens|Savage benchmark]] **has shown that the accuracy measure is not so reliable**, so we don't check that (anyway, just report the result).
+**How to report the results**
+<code>
+A result is composed by the following list
+- the device used plus the language used, eventual overclock, eventual custom firmware and so on.
+- time elapsed for a given n in seconds (see below)
+- the result printed
+- the code used.
+N options:
+'000
+for fast implementations
+'000
+'000'000
+if the calculator is too slow, or limited, to compute a given n, then report "for n the computation
+takes too much time". Conversely, if the calculator is too fast to compute a given n, then report
+"for n the computation takes too little time, i skipped it"
+</code>
+===== Speed section =====
+==== Physical calculators ====
+=== n is 100 ===
+  - HP 50g userRPL
+    * 1.06 @75mhz
+    * Res: 5050
+    * code: ((<code>
+<<
+  @n
+@sum
+  \->
+  n
+  sum
+  <<
+    PUSH
+    -105 SF
+n
+    FOR a
+      a DUP * @a^2
+      \v/ @sqrt(a^2)
+      'sum' STO+
+    NEXT
+    sum
+    POP
+  >>
+>>
+<code>))
+=== n is 1'000 ===
+  - HP 50g userRPL
+    * 10.01 @75mhz
+    * Res: 500500
+    * same of entry with n=100
+=== n is 10'000 ===
+  - HP 50g userRPL
+    * 102.093 @75mhz
+    * Res: 50005000
+    * same of entry with n=100
+=== n is 100'000 ===
+=== n is 1'000'000 ===
+==== Emulators on mobile/handheld devices smaller than 7'' (7'' included) ====
+=== n is 100 ===
+=== n is 1'000 ===
+=== n is 10'000 ===
+=== n is 100'000 ===

HP Calculator Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools