Casio Prizm FX-CG50 Graphing Calculator

It is a complete calculator and can be used in the high school and the university

Toller Taschnrechner mit sehr gut lesbarem, detailreichem Farb-Display. Komplexe Berechnungen lassen sich mit der übersichtlichen Tastatur schnell und übersichtlich eingeben; Änderungen der Formeln oder Werte lassen sich jederzeit durchführen ohne Neueingabe. Hunderte Funktionen sind über Mehrfachbelegung, Menüs und durch das Display beschriftete Funktionstasten abrufbar; sehr hilfreich. (Primfaktorzerlegung wurde unverständlicher Weise vergessen, lässt sich aber leicht durch ein kleines Programm nachrüsten.)
Viele Betriebsmodi: Funktionsgraphen, Tabellenkalkulation (echt brauchbar), 3D Plots, Tabellen und Statistik. Finanzmathematik vorhanden, aber unpraktisch implementiert. CAS fehlt völlig (vermutlich absichtlich), auch das Rechnen mit großen Integerzahlen fehlt. Das schreiben einige ewig gestrige Schulen wohl so vor. Wer da mehr möchte, nimmt den nur etwas teureren Casio CP400II. Hätte ich den zuerst gekauft, hätte ich den schicken CG50 wohl nie gekauft.

Nice packaging..fast shipping..working excellent..highly recommended…

Starting with the not go great:
1) If my fingers press the number buttons slightly off center, often the calculator won’t register that I have pressed the buttons. This happens often enough as I quickly punch the numbers that it’s a noticeable annoyance, having to watch the screen to confirm that it has registered my entry, slowing me down.
2) The “Ans” button requires pressing the “shift” key first, if it’s not the first entry in the next formula or calculations. This extra step consumes time and is inconvenient.
3) A bit bulky if you keep the lid on or attach the lid to the backside. Wish they had minimized the gap between the lid cover and the keypad.

The good parts:
1) Calculator performance is great. There are videos on the web that compare this calculator with a similar model from TI, and this calculator is superior in complex matrix calculations and graphing. You may not use these often, but given that they cost about the same, it’s good to buy the better one.
2) Stylish design, with the muted texture giving this calculator a classy feel.
3) Great lighted screen, making it very easy to see in just about all indoor lighting conditions.

Excelente calculadora para los estudiantes de ingeniería

The fx-CG50 is a fairly high end non-CAS (more on this later) graphing calculator. Marketing-wise, it positions itself as a direct competitor to the TI-84 Plus CE, but that’s selling it short. In terms of power, it’s more similar to the non-CAS TI-Nspire CX II that it is to the TI-84 Plus CE.

Here is how it stacks up compared to the 84 Plus CE:

Processor speed: The fx-CG50 has a 116 MHz Hitachi SH7305 32/16-bit processor, which is a variant of the CPU that was used in the Sega Dreamcast game console. Oddly, given that this is a calculator, the SH7305 lacks an FPU. This was probably done to make it consume less power. The 84 Plus CE has a 48 MHz Zilog eZ80 16/8-bit processor (also without an FPU). On paper, the difference is massive. In practice, the Casio runs about 2 to 8 times faster than the TI on most operations. That’s still significant and you can see it quite dramatically when plotting a graph.

Memory: Memory is laid out somewhat differently between the two calculators. The fx-CG50 splits its memory between 61 kb of main memory and 16 Mb of “storage” memory. The “storage” memory serves both as a flash ROM and as a file system. The 84 Plus CE has 149 kb of RAM and 3 Mb of flash ROM for applications. On paper, the TI seems to have more RAM, but a lot of what the TI needs to keep in RAM, the Casio can offload to its bigger “storage” memory, keeping all of thee 61 kb free for use. Which one wins will depend on how you use it, but overall, the two are on the same order of magnitude when it comes to memory. For my use, the Casio’s more flexible memory layout makes it more practical.

Functionality: Both are advanced scientific calculators with almost everything you can imagine built-in or offered as an “app”. Where the fx-CG50 trounces the 84 Plus CE and leaves it bleeding on the floor is that there is a free CAS system available that’s a port of Xcas/Giac (the same CAS system that’s the basis for the HP Prime), propelling the fx-CG50 into the CAS category of super calculators. If you don’t know what CAS is, it’s a software system that lets you do symbolic math and exact arithmetic. It’s so powerful, that it’s banned in almost every exam and even in some regular classes. Where the TI wins is in the vast ecosystem of downloadable apps for every imaginable purpose.

Programming: Until recently, the Casio was a clear winner because it comes with a light version of Python built in. But TI has since added Python to the 84 Plus CE. You may still see the 84 advertised as pre-Python, but receive the Python version, however there are no guarantees that you won’t get older, pre-Python stock. It used to be that the 84 Plus CE could be programmed in Z80 machine language, but after someone wrote a Z80 program that could inconspicuously disable “exam mode”, TI updated the OS to prevent native code, killing one of its best features. It’s possible to jailbreak the newer 84s to allow Z80 machine code, but TI could counter that at any time. The Casio, on the other hand, still allows native programming, AND there are tools available to program it (from a PC) using C++ and other languages, making it again the clear winner for programmability. Both calculators have a built-in BASIC-like language, but Casio’s is horrible. If you plan to use the BASIC-like programming language, TI-BASIC is the winner by far, and it’s better documented.

Batteries: The TI is the winner here. It has a nice, slim cell phone style rechargeable battery. But the Casio has a feature that I haven’t seen since my old HP 200LX: it can use either disposable alkaline batteries OR Ni-MH rechargeable batteries (which are not recommended for calculators that don’t expressly support them). The Casio, however, doesn’t recharge the Ni-MH batteries itself. They need to be recharged externally. But it’s aware of them (if you tell it) and is able to report the correct charge.

Price: Both the Casio and the TI are priced within $20 or $30, the Casio usually being the cheaper of the two, despite being a lot more powerful.

Alternatives: Just as the TI-84 Plus CE is an upgrade of the TI-83 Plus, which is now fairly outdated, the Casio fx-CG50 is an upgrade of the Casio fx-9750GIII. However, the 9750GIII is NOT outdated. In fact, some benchmarks show it to be faster than the CG50. It has a lower resolution black-and-white screen, but in all other respects, except for a smaller 3 Mb storage space, it’s practically identical to the CG50, right down to the keyboard layout. But it costs peanuts compare to the fx-CG50 or the TI-84. It will cost between a third and half of the price of the color models. I got mine on sale for $30. If you don’t mind b&w graphics, it’s a phenomenal value.

Size: The Casio is thicker, wider, and heavier than the TI. If you’re shopping for a case, you’ll need one that supports oversized calculators like the Nspire CX II. The Casio won’t fit in cases that are made for the TI-84. Some will not like the bulkiness of the Casio.

Politics aside, if your choice is between a Casio fx-CG50 and a TI 84 Plus CE Python, the Casio would be your best option by a wide margin. But politics exist. Your school or teacher or standard exam may require the TI and bar the Casio, leaving you little choice. The course material is much more likely to be tailored to the TI. The TI is overwhelmingly the most popular calculator, so you may be surrounded by others who have the 84. This makes it easier to share information, tips, and tricks, or to seek help when you need it.