Maple does not come with such a benchmark performance test suite.

What particular kinds of computations do you expect to do, for which you would like to get a comparison?

It really helps to be specific. There are some internal parts of Maple that utilize multiple CPU cores, but that only affects certain kinds of computation.

An example of a general discussion being quite unusefully sidetracked by just some very particular kinds of computation (eg. rank of a large float Matrix, the performance of which has little to no bearing on a great many other kinds of computations) is this old Post.

If you are actually trying to compute eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors then please put your close followup queries here, instead of in a wholly separate new Question thread.

Please put your followup queries on this here, not in wholly separate new Question threads.

@somestudent What are the allowed numeric ranges of w, x, and y?

@madhav123 I will not be able to look at this for the next 6 days.

If your last attachment is actually yet another revision, then I'd have to wait until I could examine what aspects you might have changed. (ie. you wrote "similar", but I suspect you've changed something important.)

Please be patient. Perhaps someone else will respond before I can.

(In the meantime, please don't spawn a separate Question thread on it, even if there's no other response here.)

@madhav123 It helps there to restrict the range.

Shear_coefficient_-_Papers_ac.mw

I changed your Post into a Question.

From now, on, please submit your queries as Questions.

@mmcdara Two minor comments:

1) Carl's reformulation can be had by,

   exp(simplify(ln(f))) assuming t>0;

2) If you don't want to have fiddle with resetting UseHardwareFloats (after setting it to false) then you could make your particular expression non-evalhf'able in the following kludgy but quick&temporary way,

   plot(eval(f,exp=%exp), t=0.9..1.12);

Since the default for UseHardwareFloats is deduced then you could also avoid evalhf by setting Digits>15 . So if you don't mind higher working precision then another way to get that temporary effect, without having to set/re-set Digits, is,

   evalf[16](plot(f, t=0.9..1.12));

@MaxOJ You're welcome.

ps. I'd supposed that you probably already knew why it gets a parabola, and wanted to use that command on purpose.

Download pl_ex.mw

@sand15 I'd already figured out that it broke because of the adaptive=geometric algorithm new in Maple 2022. The cause is already quite straightforward to pinpoint.

And, as I'd alluded, it worked fine in prior to Maple 2022, ie. Maple 2021.2 and earlier.

I do put such information in the bug report, when I know it.

[edit] In Maple 2023.0, the default for the adaptive option is (cryptically),
    adaptive=default
Using the OP's T(x,4) the plot command dispatches it as if one had supplied adaptive=geometric, and the portion is missing. But using expand(simplify(T(x,4))) the plot command ends up dispatching for this example it as if adaptive=true had been supplied, and the curve portion is not missing. It's possible that it tries the fallback due to computing (only? too many?) undefined values in the "geometric" method's tools.

@delvin Duplicate Question threads on this will be flagged as such, and may be deleted.

@madhav123 Please do not spawn wholly separate new Question threads for this same topic.

Instead, you could add your close followup queries or additional details here.

Attached is an edit to your most recent followup:
   Shear_coefficient_-_gyroscopic_couple_ac.mw

@C_R 

restart;
with(geometry):
_EnvHorizontalName := 'x':
_EnvVerticalName := 'y':

point(P1, -1, -1):
point(P2, 1, 1):

ellipse(E, ['foci' = [P1,P2], 'MinorAxis' = 2*sqrt(14)]):

Equation(E);

                   2                 2           
              240 x  - 32 x y + 240 y  - 3584 = 0

@mmcdara I mentioned in my Answer that piecewise's behaviour here has a similar explanation to that of `if` -- since it too has special evaluation rules and thus the argument sequence is not flattened.

(I've now italicized that sentence in my Answer, which is intended in the context of what I wrote about `if`'s evaluation rules and the non-flattening of the argument sequence.)

@delvin Please add any followup queries/details for this problem here (or one of your other threads on the topic), instead of spawning another wholly separate new Question thread for it.