Set your window settings to show from x=-10 to x=10, and whatever y values are needed to make the x and y scales equal.

Enter the indefinite integral of the (cube root of x) + 2. (Important: Use the integral function in the graph equation. If your calculator doesn't support indefinite integrals, use the definite integral from 0 to x. If it does support indefinite integrals, try it both ways.) https://imgur.com/a/v11cT1Z is what it looks like on my Prizm. (Sorry about not taking a screenshot, I was too lazy to find one of my mini USB cables)

Time how long it takes to graph it (from pressing the start button to all processing finished), and post the time, your calculator model, any overclocks, and whether you used the indefinite integral or definite integral from 0 to x. I am particularly interested if there is a difference between the Nspire CX CAS and non-CAS.

Here are my results so far, in order from best to worst:

Using KhiCAS on my Prizm (FX-CG50, no overclock) to draw the graph took about a second. The evaluation of the integral was instant, and the graph took most of the time. This was the same whether I used indefinite or definite from 0 to x.

A friend's TI Nspire CX ii non-CAS remained responsive while drawing, but the cursor stuttered and the graph appeared in chunks and the calculator kept disappearing it and redrawing it. After about 15 seconds, he took it away from me and deleted the graph.

Using the default graphing app on my Prizm (the same FX-CG50 as before, still no overclock) took 5 minutes and 18 seconds using the definite from 0 to x.

A friend's TI-84+ CE (definite from 0 to x) appeared to draw at a little less than half the speed of my prizm, but he took it away before it finished, claims he had to factory reset it to get it to work, and now won't let me touch his calculator ever again.

A friend's TI-84 non-CE (definite from 0 to x) appeared to draw at less than half the speed of the 84CE, but he needed it before it was done. (This friend did not ban me from touching their calculator ever again.)

I am kinda curious about why the indefinite from 0 to x breaks all these calculators. What are they doing internally that is so inefficient?

Enter the indefinite integral of the (cube root of x) + 2. (Important: Use the integral function in the graph equation. If your calculator doesn't support indefinite integrals, use the definite integral from 0 to x. If it does support indefinite integrals, try it both ways.) https://imgur.com/a/v11cT1Z is what it looks like on my Prizm. (Sorry about not taking a screenshot, I was too lazy to find one of my mini USB cables)

Time how long it takes to graph it (from pressing the start button to all processing finished), and post the time, your calculator model, any overclocks, and whether you used the indefinite integral or definite integral from 0 to x. I am particularly interested if there is a difference between the Nspire CX CAS and non-CAS.

Here are my results so far, in order from best to worst:

Using KhiCAS on my Prizm (FX-CG50, no overclock) to draw the graph took about a second. The evaluation of the integral was instant, and the graph took most of the time. This was the same whether I used indefinite or definite from 0 to x.

A friend's TI Nspire CX ii non-CAS remained responsive while drawing, but the cursor stuttered and the graph appeared in chunks and the calculator kept disappearing it and redrawing it. After about 15 seconds, he took it away from me and deleted the graph.

Using the default graphing app on my Prizm (the same FX-CG50 as before, still no overclock) took 5 minutes and 18 seconds using the definite from 0 to x.

A friend's TI-84+ CE (definite from 0 to x) appeared to draw at a little less than half the speed of my prizm, but he took it away before it finished, claims he had to factory reset it to get it to work, and now won't let me touch his calculator ever again.

A friend's TI-84 non-CE (definite from 0 to x) appeared to draw at less than half the speed of the 84CE, but he needed it before it was done. (This friend did not ban me from touching their calculator ever again.)

I am kinda curious about why the indefinite from 0 to x breaks all these calculators. What are they doing internally that is so inefficient?