Post Reply 
CASIO Digital Diary Programming
09-18-2024, 01:08 AM (This post was last modified: 09-18-2024 03:29 AM by xerxes.)
Post: #1
CASIO Digital Diary Programming
The possibility of using IC cards for BASIC programming on the SHARP electronic organizers is well known.
Not so well known, is the BASIC IC card for the CASIO digital diaries, developed by the German company
SYSTECH also sold as CASIO ES-160. Recently I recevied the results of the n-queens test of this card.
The card was tested with the SF-R10 and the SF-9350, because normally a SF-Rxx is slightly faster
than a SF-9xxx, due to the faster memory access. Now we can compare the ES-160 with the Scientific
ROM Card ES-650 that uses the formula programming language of the FX-4500P.

Code:
 -
 -    9:47         SF-9350            Formula / Array / Scientific ROM Card ES-650
 -
 -    8:38         SF-R10             BASIC ROM CARD ES-160 (SYSTECH)
 -
 -    8:07         SF-9350            BASIC ROM CARD ES-160 (SYSTECH)
 -
 -    7:25         SF-R10             Formula / Array / Scientific ROM Card ES-650
 -
 -    1:30         FX-7500G           Formula / Array
 -
 -       0.245     SF-9350            Assembly / HD62076 @ 2.0 MHz / Long Memory Access Mode
 -
 -       0.196     FX-7500G           Assembly / µPD1037 @ 2.0 MHz
 -
 -       0.195     SF-R10             Assembly / HD62076 @ 2.0 MHz / Short Memory Access Mode
 -

Two things stand out in this comparison (HD62076 and µPD1037 have the same instruction set and instruction cycles):

It's strange that the SYSTECH card is slower on a SF-R10. The reason is not really clear to me.
Maybe it has something to do with the memory management, because a SF-Rxx can handle much more RAM.

Both cards are pretty slow compared to the FX-7500G with the same CPU. I assume that these cards were
not developed in assembly language.

https://casio.ledudu.com/pockets.asp?type=1166&lg=eng

https://casio.ledudu.com/pockets.asp?type=4224&lg=eng

Calculator Benchmark
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)