fx-9860gii-2 brief introduction

[Steve Simpkin]

Mjim,
That is great information about power consumption of the fx-CG50. For reference the battery indicator turned red on my CG50 today one year almost to the day after I received it. That was using the original Sanyo alkaline AAA batteries that came with it. Granted I used it very lightly so this likely represents the maximum life expectancy for a set of batteries.

[Mjim]

(12-08-2019 08:40 PM)xerxes Wrote:  Interesting results. I'm using Eneloops in my FX-9860G SD without any complications even at 118 MHz.

I'm using 3rd generation Sanyo eneloops myself; I guard them like a dragon guard's their treasure horde.

(12-08-2019 08:40 PM)xerxes Wrote:  Apropos optimized: Trying to find the optimual solution for each language, I've noticed that the 8-bit CASIOs are faster with
unstructured code using a list or an array, but the SH-3/4 models are faster with structured code using a matrix. C.Basic however
is faster with unstructured code using an array. So it can be said, that all versions are optimized.

Could you please test the C.Basic code from post #25 on the CG50 at normal and maximum speed? Thank you.
Which OS version is installed on your CG50?

Sure; the OS version is v03.30.0202:

fx-CG50 default clock (Ptune3 "NORMAL"):

Xerxes code / C.Basic CG v1.40beta:
0.417 seconds / DBL Mode
0.273 seconds / INT Mode

Original code / C.Basic CG v1.40beta:
0.52 seconds / DBL Mode
0.31 seconds / INT Mode

fx-CG50 188.75MHz clock (Ptune3 "F5"):



Xerxes code / C.Basic CG v1.40beta:
0.239 seconds / DBL Mode
0.159 seconds / INT Mode

Original code / C.Basic CG v1.40beta:
0.30 seconds / DBL Mode
0.19 seconds / INT Mode

(12-09-2019 01:08 AM)Steve Simpkin Wrote:  Mjim,
That is great information about power consumption of the fx-CG50. For reference the battery indicator turned red on my CG50 today one year almost to the day after I received it. That was using the original Sanyo alkaline AAA batteries that came with it. Granted I used it very lightly so this likely represents the maximum life expectancy for a set of batteries.

The included AAA batteries probably have about 1000mAh capacity at normal drain rates so at maximum load it's around 25 hours of non-stop number crunching, or 222 hours of just idle screen time (at brightness level 2).

I've settled on brightness level 2 as a default as that seems to be a good standby current drain/readability balance for me. At 4.5mA idle; 750mAh eneloops should be good for about 167 hours of screen time; I normally leave screen off time at 60 minutes (less flash writes as well). 35uA when off is nearly 2.5 years on the eneloops.

I guess this is the first colour screen device I've owned that has over a hundred hours of screen time on battery....or it would be if I wasn't so keen on overclocking everything all the time

EDIT: I did some measurements for the fx-9750G2 which is probably a bit more useful to the OP as it is more similar in hardware. Power consumption figures weren't all that much different, but I attached an Excel document in 97-2003 format...which I think is compatible with open office. There are likely mistakes however, so I'll look at it again tomorrow.

Ftune3 'Normal' and Ftune3 'F5' settings were recorded over a 5 minute period; my multi-meter would record the minimum & maximum peak as well as average over that time period. Ftune3 'F2', 'F3', 'F4' were only sampled for a minute. Scrolling current consumption was just recording the maximum by scrolling up and down the calculation history screen several times until I felt that the peak recording wasn't changing all that much, so is likely inaccurate.

The Summation benchmark is the 100k version of this:
https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-97...l#pid86751

In mode 1 the idle current at stock clocks on the fx-9750G2 averages 0.73mA (0.31 -> 12.20mA). Looks like 1000 hours of screen time isn't out of the question...

[xerxes]

I'm very curious about the results of the upcoming native code compiler version of C.Basic, called C:Basic.

[Mjim]

Whoops, just updated my post to avoid a double post with some figures for the fx-9750G2.

My knowledge of programming languages and terms is pretty basic, but does that mean we will be able to create C.Basic programs and convert them to run as native applications on the calculator?

[xerxes]

I'm not sure, but I assume C:Basic will act like C.Basic but compiling to native code instead of bytecode.

[Hlib]

(11-24-2019 07:52 PM)Mjim Wrote:  Hlib, did you happen to record the part number of the flash chip used in your fx-9860GII during the tear down?

There was an unfortunate mistake - I mixed up the models of calculators and gave you the wrong information. Today I completely disassembled three fx-9860gii-2. There are indeed installed flash chips MX29LV320EBTI-70G, which are differ in marking some last characters. Disassembly is very simple, just a couple of minutes.






1 http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1576344654/eaa10...910100.jpg
2 http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1576344709/db952...910102.jpg
3 http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1576344744/500c0...910108.jpg
4 http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1576344772/4f3b5...910119.jpg
5 http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1576344832/21d08...910122.jpg
6 http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1576347892/0fa1a...910508.jpg

[Mjim]

Hey thanks Hlib, impressed you have 3 of them

Seems very similar to the fx-9750G2-2 in terms of layout, but the PCB's are different. Exactly the same flash chip however (MX29LV320EBTI-70G). I'm not sure how to hide pictures without taking up the entire forum, so I've just posted the direct links.

fx-9750G2 SH3:
https://i.imgur.com/yDZlSDg.jpg

fx-9750G2 SH4:
https://i.imgur.com/JBcLSrr.png

Casio fx-CG50 PCB:
https://i.imgur.com/zVdDSxX.jpg

The flash chip (Spansion S99-50272) on the fx-CG50 model is I think a bit of a mystery.

[BINUBALL]

I'm curious about what is different from fx-9860gii and fx-9860gii-2? In Korea, only sold fx-9860GII (or fx-9860g2). And I never saw name like fx-9860gii-2.

I know fx 9860g2 has two variation, USB Power Graphic and USB Power Graphic 2.