Timing normal 32K RAM vs 32K 16bit RAM

[senior_falcon]

19 hours ago, apersson850 said:

30 seconds is enough to show if there was a difference. Since there's hardly any, there's no point in running for 30 minutes.

Hmmm you not understand what sample size means?

And you still using a stop watch like watching a horse race?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be accurate to say that if you cannot see any difference after 30 seconds, then for virtually everyone the difference is not important.

[apersson850]

1 hour ago, senior_falcon said:

I think it would be accurate to say that if you cannot see any difference after 30 seconds, then for virtually everyone the difference is not important.

It's not just that. A larger sample size is relevant if there's a significant difference between the individual samples. In this case, where a program doing the same thing in a loop is running a number of loops, provided you can time it accurately enough, you only need one loop. There is no advantage to running it several times, since each turn takes the same time. The only reason is to reduce errors in the timing itself.

Human average reaction time in an un-prepared state is roughly one second. When you sit and wait for something, it's a fraction of that.

Thus a run time of half a minute is enough to get manual timing with a stopwatch down to an accuracy of roughly 1%, and anything better than that is pointless in this case.

[senior_falcon]

As Yogi Berra once said, "This is like deja vu all over again. It was discussed in exhaustive detail back in 2019. Here is the thread:

If you want to take a walk down memory lane you can GOTO page 2, starting at post #40.

In post #51 I said:

   Look, don't take my word for it, I'm wrong lots of times. Try it for yourself. Pick a big XB program of your choice and try running it with 32K on the 8 bit bus and then on the 16 bit bus. If your TI setup doesn't allow this you can use Win994a which lets you choose between those options. Post your results here. If you can find a program that runs even 5% faster I will buy you the biggest steak on the menu at Uncle Louie's Steakhouse in Cortland.

I should add that we're talking about XB only here. Assembly subroutines will benefit noticeably from the faster memory.

 

The offer still stands...

[Reciprocating Bill]

This has all happened before. This will all happen again.

 

 

[RXB]

6 hours ago, apersson850 said:

Yes I do understand sample size, but you don't. It's relevant when you have variations between the samples. When you run x identical loops, there's no variation.
In this case a stop watch would do. When I do real testing on the real 99/4A, i use the clock in the computer. Those who don't have that use a stopwatch.

Agreed in Classic99 I use the built in clock Tursi built into Classic99 that is using the PC timing which is a billion times faster then the 3.3Mhz 9900 clock.

100 CALL CLEAR
110 OPEN #1:"CLOCK"
120 INPUT #1:A$,B$,C$
130 FOR C=1 TO 10000
140 ! test call or routine goes here
150 NEXT C
160 INPUT #1:D$,E$,F$
170 PRINT A$,D$:B$,E$,C$,F$
180 END

 

[RXB]

6 hours ago, apersson850 said:

So what caused ten loops taking twice the time, not ten times the time, then? Bad math?

According to you it did not as you claim no difference.

[RXB]

22 hours ago, senior_falcon said:

As apersson points out and as anyone can see, there is something very wrong here. There are 3 possibilities that I can see that could account for this:

1 - Besides the loop count (10000 vs 100000) the programs were different somehow.

2 - For some reason Classic99 on your computer has some major errors when measuring time.

3 - You just made up the numbers.

Maybe there is another explanation that I haven't thought of.

Did you ever run the test I posted more than once on your PC?

In a loop of 10,000 I get a difference of 1 second for 10,000 loop as it shows the starting time and ending time.

100 CALL CLEAR
110 OPEN #1:"CLOCK"
120 INPUT #1:A$,B$,C$
130 FOR C=1 TO 10000
140 PRINT
150 NEXT C
160 INPUT #1:D$,E$,F$
170 PRINT A$,D$:B$,E$,C$,F$
180 END

 I get 13:10 and 13:11 for running 2 Classic99 side by side on screen.

[RXB]

4 hours ago, senior_falcon said:

This doesn't even tell the whole story. The thread was "Byte Magazine Sieve Benchmark"

 

In post #41 Rasmus reports:

  These are my results using Classic99 QI399.057:

  TI BASIC: 10:24

  XB: 3:43

  RXB 2022A: 8:39

 

In post #45, Bill reports:

  ...on real iron* running out of a FinalGrom, I get: (this was looping 1000 times)

  TI-BASIC 60 seconds                x10= 10 minutes

  Extended Basic 23 seconds       x10= 3 minutes 50 seconds

  RXB 2020  23 seconds

  RXB 2022  52 seconds              x10= 8 minutes 40 seconds

 

Yet in post #43 Rich reports:

  I ran this test multiple times with same results:

  TI Basic 13 Minute 44 seconds

  XB  13 Minute 9 seconds

  RXB 2022A 13 Minute 8 seconds

 

And in post #44 Rich reports:

  OK RAN A 100000 LOOP TEST SO RESULTS ARE:

  XB       = 37 Minutes 5 Seconds

  XB 2.9 = 37 Minutes 6 Seconds

  RXB     = 26 Minutes 2 Seconds

 

On Classic99, Rasmus gets results very similar to Bill's results on a real TI99. Rich's tests do not even remotely resemble those results. Tursi has shown why my geriatric computer gives inaccurate results. I think we can rule out performance issues on Rich's computer, so that leaves just 2 possibilities that I can see:

1 - The programs he is running are not the same as the one he posted that Rasmus and Bill ran, and not even the same in his two tests (10000 loop vs 100000 loop)

2 - He has fabricated those numbers

Maybe there is another explanation? (edit) Perhaps he is using a different number system, such as quinary or undecimal?

I am not a liar I post the results I get.

Now I have found if you run multiples or Classic99 it can be affected by other apps like browser or Windows updates.

To get same results every time would require only app is Classic99 in Windows 10 running, even though I have 12 CPU 4.3Ghz on this system running at 3900Mhz RAM.

When needed the boost clock under Windows 10 can jump up to 5.3Ghz on this AMD 3900X CPU.

[senior_falcon]

4 hours ago, RXB said:

Did you ever run the test I posted more than once on your PC?

In a loop of 10,000 I get a difference of 1 second for 10,000 loop as it shows the starting time and ending time.

100 CALL CLEAR
110 OPEN #1:"CLOCK"
120 INPUT #1:A$,B$,C$
130 FOR C=1 TO 10000
140 PRINT
150 NEXT C
160 INPUT #1:D$,E$,F$
170 PRINT A$,D$:B$,E$,C$,F$
180 END

 I get 13:10 and 13:11 for running 2 Classic99 side by side on screen.

(Sr. Falcon) Here is the program you said you ran-Byte Magazine Sieve Benchmark, post #34

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(RXB) Ok run this program in TI Basic, XB, RXB 2020, XB3, Super XB, XB 2.9 and RXB 2022.

 

100 CALL CLEAR
110 OPEN #1:"CLOCK"
120 INPUT #1:A$,B$,C$
130 FOR C=1 TO 10000
140 CALL CLEAR
150 NEXT C
160 INPUT #1:D$,E$,F$
170 PRINT A$,D$:B$,E$,C$,F$
180 END

I am doing that now to get results!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Sr. Falcon) Can you see that they are different? This comes as quite a shock to me - I never would have guessed that when you run different programs, they would not run in the same amount of time.

So it seems likely that the 100000 loop so-called "test" was yet another program, different from the other 2.

Edited June 7, 2022 by senior_falcon

[senior_falcon]

8 hours ago, apersson850 said:

So what caused ten loops taking twice the time, not ten times the time, then? Bad math?

(RXB response) According to you it did not as you claim no difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a simple algebra problem for you (Rich) to ponder:

If I drive my car at 60 miles per hour, how long would it take to go 1 mile?

(spoiler - the answer is 1 minute)

How long would it take to go 10 miles?

What would your reaction be if I told you it would take 2 or 3 minutes to go 10 miles?

[apersson850]

3 hours ago, RXB said:

According to you it did not as you claim no difference.

It was you, Rich, who claimed ten times as much program run would do it in two or three times the time. You haven't really explained why, although now the latest research here points to that you were running different programs claimed to test the same thing.

I've lost track of your mess now.

Anyway, it has been proven by now, and before too, that how fast RAM is when using Extended BASIC doesn't matter. It uses RAM too little for that to be important.

[RXB]

13 hours ago, apersson850 said:

It was you, Rich, who claimed ten times as much program run would do it in two or three times the time. You haven't really explained why, although now the latest research here points to that you were running different programs claimed to test the same thing.

I've lost track of your mess now.

Anyway, it has been proven by now, and before too, that how fast RAM is when using Extended BASIC doesn't matter. It uses RAM too little for that to be important.

I have posted so many videos of Classic99 running programs side by side yet never have I see you post a video of proof yourself, odd huh?

So I have posted poof and you have not.

Rich Gilbertson - YouTube

 

[senior_falcon]

2 hours ago, RXB said:

I have posted so many videos of Classic99 running programs side by side yet never have I see you post a video of proof yourself, odd huh?

So I have posted poof and you have not.

Rich Gilbertson - YouTube

 

This is too vague. Which video are you referring to and what do you say it proves? Also, you say apersson has not provided proof. Proof of what?

Edited June 8, 2022 by senior_falcon
spelling

[Reciprocating Bill]

3 hours ago, RXB said:

So I have posted poof and you have not.

 

Here's a video for you to respond to. One (on the right) depicts the run of a maze generation program in Extended BASIC on an unexpanded console. The other depicts the same program running in Extended BASIC on a console with 32k 16-bit RAM expansion. The latter is very slightly faster than the former (nobody has ever disputed that).

 

What we are debating is, is the performance difference significant?  I would say not. Also, would more repetitions make the difference more significant? No, the relative speed between the two platforms would remain unchanged.

 

That's all.   

Edited June 8, 2022 by Reciprocating Bill

[RXB]

4 hours ago, Reciprocating Bill said:

 

Here's a video for you to respond to. One (on the right) depicts the run of a maze generation program in Extended BASIC on an unexpanded console. The other depicts the same program running in Extended BASIC on a console with 32k 16-bit RAM expansion. The latter is very slightly faster than the former (nobody has ever disputed that).

 

What we are debating is, is the performance difference significant?  I would say not. Also, would more repetitions make the difference more significant? No, the relative speed between the two platforms would remain unchanged.

 

That's all.   

Here is the issue you fail to understand. 

Your timing is not using a clock like TIPI has one or Classic99 has one or say the Triple Tech card or any clock that does not use the 9900 CPU as a clock.

Thus, you are just guesstimating your final results.

A clock started recording the time before the test and then recording the ending time at end of test would tell you exactly how long it took.

Using a stop watch is laughably silly with todays technology.

Also even when I press ENTER in my demo I am using the clock so I get way more accurate results then just your guesstimating results.

[+TheBF]

36 minutes ago, RXB said:

Here is the issue you fail to understand. 

Your timing is not using a clock like TIPI has one or Classic99 has one or say the Triple Tech card or any clock that does not use the 9900 CPU as a clock.

Thus, you are just guesstimating your final results.

A clock started recording the time before the test and then recording the ending time at end of test would tell you exactly how long it took.

Using a stop watch is laughably silly with todays technology.

Also even when I press ENTER in my demo I am using the clock so I get way more accurate results then just your guesstimating results.

Important to remember video recordings run at the same speed... ?

[RXB]

3 minutes ago, TheBF said:

Important to remember video recordings run at the same speed... ?

But you do not have a time of how long the program took, just a guesstimate.

[Reciprocating Bill]

15 minutes ago, RXB said:

But you do not have a time of how long the program took, just a guesstimate.

Without using a clock of any kind, it is plain to see that the right hand run starts about one second earlier than the left. It is also patently obvious that they finish at about the same time, and print information to the screen at about the same rate. Given the time the task requires to complete, it is also patently obvious, whatever the precise number may be, that there is only a small difference in performance between these two platforms. No increase in measurement precision is going to result in any other conclusion than "a small difference." 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Reciprocating Bill

[senior_falcon]

On page 1, post #21, on May 31, I stated:

"He isn't. Don't waste any time on this. No matter what you do, Rich will find fault with the results."

 

If only I could predict the stock market so accurately......

 

[senior_falcon]

23 minutes ago, RXB said:

But you do not have a time of how long the program took, just a guesstimate.

I have shown you how to turn off the 32K ram when you run a program in Classic99. With that information you have the ability to run an XB program both with and without memory expansion.

Here's a challenge for you: Make your own video that shows this huge speed difference you say exists. That way you can prove to the rest of us buffoons with stop watches just how wrong we are. I will wait eagerly to see the results.

One thing though. Be sure the video shows a listing of both programs you are running. That way we can verify that you are not comparing apples with pomegranates.

[RXB]

24 minutes ago, Reciprocating Bill said:

Without using a clock of any kind, it is plain to see that the right hand run starts about one second earlier than the left. It is also patently obvious that they finish at about the same time, and print information to the screen at about the same rate. Given the time the task requires to complete, it is also patently obvious, whatever the precise number may be, that there is only a small difference in performance between these two platforms. No increase in measurement precision is going to result in any other conclusion than "a small difference." 

Still a GUESSITIMAT at best!

 

[RXB]

20 minutes ago, senior_falcon said:

On page 1, post #21, on May 31, I stated:

"He isn't. Don't waste any time on this. No matter what you do, Rich will find fault with the results."

 

If only I could predict the stock market so accurately......

 

So attack me personally instead of my argument. 

You do understand that is how you lose any debate on any subject?

[senior_falcon]

Not an attack, just an accurate statement!

[RXB]

4 minutes ago, senior_falcon said:

I have shown you how to turn off the 32K ram when you run a program in Classic99. With that information you have the ability to run an XB program both with and without memory expansion.

Here's a challenge for you: Make your own video that shows this huge speed difference you say exists. That way you can prove to the rest of us buffoons with stop watches just how wrong we are. I will wait eagerly to see the results.

One thing though. Be sure the video shows a listing of both programs you are running. That way we can verify that you are not comparing apples with pomegranates.

I do not have a console with 16bit memory on bus installed. But you already know that.

This is asking me to produce something I do not have while you refuse to do a more accurate test of what you do have.

Just add the clock and show the video with times.

Why are you resisting this request as you have the hardware?

[RXB]

2 minutes ago, senior_falcon said:

Not an attack, just an accurate statement!

It was personal and directed at only me. 

Now you are doing a Trump and deny it happened.

What about the my argument for using a clock you seem to have ignored that?