Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 219 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey benchmarkers! For my job I do a lot of my work with pretty huge Excel spreadsheets, and I have seen the Ryzen vids appearing to show a performance edge for the 1700x vs. the 7700k (my current workstation PC). I would like to tap the hive mind here to see if this holds up in a real-world experiment.

In my spreadsheets I am loath to convert my formulas into values, as I can't go back later to verify that the calculations were performed correctly. But this creates huge issues with sorting, as sorting with formulas can take a really long time. I have put together a modestly complex spreadsheet of random data and formulas. I would be curious to see how the intel chips with faster cores (OC is fine) stack up against the AMD chips with more cores (again, OC is fine) doing a simple sort on one of the columns. Excel can take advantage of multiple cores, so it should be an interesting battle between the intel and amd chips.

If you are interested, here is a link to my spreadsheet on googledocs, which now includes a benchmark button and timer courtesy of huzzug:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tVTAdP6WczJvlEAJNGhZXX87UJXH6vAV

Original non-timer sheet is here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UTgkRg4yfCcoSZDxhIUD1Q99e7-26Tqx

You will need to download the spreadsheet and run the benchmark in your local MS Excel (not in google sheets). Just see how long it takes your PC to complete the sort. Note that you can only run the benchmark once in the worksheet. Once the sheet is sorted the calc times drop to less than 30 seconds if you re-bench. Just close and open again if you want to do a second run. Please do no more than two runs unless you reboot. For some reason the sort times seem drop significantly the third time the bencmark is run. Don't blame me, I didn't make Excel.

It would be helpful to have the following information:
CPU:
#Cores:
CPU clock speed:
Total system memory:
memory speed:
Excel version:
32/64 bit:
time to sort (in seconds):

Here is what I have compiled so far:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSVrwXT3OC748bJnLNpUiBxBbRNoLBmH_XaimWmXs2nq4a9ojVAWJJch5VQxRe927_Z_LYf51FNchUi/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true&widget=true&headers=false
 

·
9 Cans of Ravioli
Joined
·
20,787 Posts
Quote:
CPU: 6400 Skylake
#CPU cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 2.7GHz
Total system memory: 8GB
Excel ver: 2016
Time to sort (in seconds): 131 seconds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Nice! Any chance you will do it again with your 4.58GHz OC, or whatever will stay stable for the sort? I will make some graphs if I get enough data, but I am guessing your 6400 is pretty close to the 7700K in my workstation at the same frequency.
 

·
9 Cans of Ravioli
Joined
·
20,787 Posts
I bought a 7700K, had to flash the BIOS off the modded one, killed the 7700K, and unable to back flash the BIOS now. Stuck at stock.
frown.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pook View Post

I bought a 7700K, had to flash the BIOS off the modded one, killed the 7700K, and unable to back flash the BIOS now. Stuck at stock.
frown.gif
That sucks.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,463 Posts
Nice man!! This is interesting for sure
biggrin.gif


Its difficult to tell and I am guessing there is some error in the way you are timing it, but it appears that core count is effecting the bench result. It would be interesting to see if the 7700K produced the same result with 2/2 vs 4/8. Do you have the ability to turn off HT and reduce the core count on your 7700K computer? I might join in the fun when I get some free time, I can run i9 7940x (14c) and see how core scaling holds up.

Ok, its a bit of a pipe dream here, but it would be cool to see this worked into an actual benchmark program haha. With a start button and auto timer function, but requiring MS Office installed is a huge drawback for benchers.

I cant want to see more
thumb.gif
 

·
Filthy Casual
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
CPU: i5 6500
#CPU cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 3.6GHz
Total system memory: 8GB
Excel ver: 2016
Time to sort (in seconds): 154 seconds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
CPU: Ryzen R5 1600
#CPU cores: 6
CPU clock speed: 3.90GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
Excel ver: 2016
Time to sort (in seconds): 106 seconds
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: ir88ed

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by daffy.duck View Post

CPU: Ryzen R5 1600
#CPU cores: 6
CPU clock speed: 3.90GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
Excel ver: 2016
Time to sort (in seconds): 106 seconds
Here come the Ryzens. I suspected that core count was going to be a big factor and the R5 1600 does a good job of making that point. It is going toe to toe with a 7700K @ 4.5GHz and my 6 core 5930K @ 3.7GHz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mllrkllr88 View Post

Its difficult to tell and I am guessing there is some error in the way you are timing it, but it appears that core count is effecting the bench result.
Agreed; timing by hand is error prone and a poor approach.

I have looked at some of the visual basic code in excel in spreadsheets that have process timers (like: http://exceltrader.net/excel-benchmark/ ) but it would take me quite a while to figure out how to adapt this. I will do some looking to see if there isn't a more clear example somewhere.
 

·
New001
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mllrkllr88 View Post

Nice man!! This is interesting for sure
biggrin.gif


Its difficult to tell and I am guessing there is some error in the way you are timing it, but it appears that core count is effecting the bench result. It would be interesting to see if the 7700K produced the same result with 2/2 vs 4/8. Do you have the ability to turn off HT and reduce the core count on your 7700K computer? I might join in the fun when I get some free time, I can run i9 7940x (14c) and see how core scaling holds up.

Ok, its a bit of a pipe dream here, but it would be cool to see this worked into an actual benchmark program haha. With a start button and auto timer function, but requiring MS Office installed is a huge drawback for benchers.

I cant want to see more
thumb.gif
I think if you have an excel spreadsheet that has performance issues you are using the wrong program though. Most people would move to a proper database if they ran into issues with excel, rather than upgrading all their systems

I wonder if using the Apache POI libraries to interact with the excel files would be a similar comparison to using excel itself. Could probably set up a benchmark without ms excel and try to emulate the way excel would do things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinFX View Post

I think if you have an excel spreadsheet that has performance issues you are using the wrong program though. Most people would move to a proper database if they ran into issues with excel, rather than upgrading all their systems

I wonder if using the Apache POI libraries to interact with the excel files would be a similar comparison to using excel itself. Could probably set up a benchmark without ms excel and try to emulate the way excel would do things.
Part of me agrees that there could be a better solution than excel, and I am pretty ignorant of the capabilities of an actual database. I get new datasets frequently; would I set up a database for each of them? I guess that seems like a lot of infrastructure for one-off analyses. Excel allows me to visually see the data structure, which is really helpful with making the formulas for calculations on complex data. Also I do a lot of sorting/formatting/mining of the results, and need flexibility for analysis. For instance, with a data base could I easily do new calculations to pull out all the genes that pass a pairwise ttest between two conditions and are negatively correlated with a given pheontype? That is a two minute job in excel.
 

·
What should be here ?
Joined
·
5,924 Posts
Alrighty, I bit and made a little update for the workbook. I basically automated the entire process to not require anyone to manually sort nor to record time on a stopwatch. Just click the "Benchmark". I'll want to make a few more updates for the sheet because I do not know whether it tests all areas of the CPU or only cache (doesn't look like, but the data is still on the file.

Linky
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
CPU: 8700K
#CPU cores: 6
CPU clock speed: 5.1GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
Excel ver: 2010
Time to sort (in seconds): 91.19 seconds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by moustang View Post

CPU: 8700K
#CPU cores: 6
CPU clock speed: 5.1GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
Excel ver: 2010
Time to sort (in seconds): 91.19 seconds
Added. A bit surprised that your system scored lower than my 5930K @ 4.8GHz. Nice OC, btw.
I reran the updated benchmark (with huzzug's timer), and got the same result as before, but with more significant figures this time
smile.gif

I wonder if the difference is excel 2010 vs 2016? If we end up with a bunch of data, it will be interesting to see if this is a factor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

Alrighty, I bit and made a little update for the workbook. I basically automated the entire process to not require anyone to manually sort nor to record time on a stopwatch. Just click the "Benchmark". I'll want to make a few more updates for the sheet because I do not know whether it tests all areas of the CPU or only cache (doesn't look like, but the data is still on the file.

Linky
Huge shout out to huzzug for putting in a timer into the spreadsheet! This is a huge improvement. Thanks huzzug!
 

·
What should be here ?
Joined
·
5,924 Posts
Can you change the OP file to the newer link in my post as I made a minor change to how the range is picked for sorting the data.
Edit: Disabled ability to save the worksheet as saving the sheet in the same order that the code sorts gives incorrect results
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ir88ed View Post

Added. A bit surprised that your system scored lower than my 5930K @ 4.8GHz. Nice OC, btw.
I reran the updated benchmark (with huzzug's timer), and got the same result as before, but with more significant figures this time
smile.gif

I wonder if the difference is excel 2010 vs 2016? If we end up with a bunch of data, it will be interesting to see if this is a factor.
It's a very memory intensive process. I suspect that the difference is down to memory architecture more than CPU speed. Your 4 channel mesh being faster than the 2 channel I have.

But Excel versions could have something to do with it as well. I guess it's time for me to break down and upgrade my Office software.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
CPU: 4790
#CPU cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 4.7GHz
Total system memory: 32GB
Excel ver: 2016
Time to sort (in seconds): 94.91 seconds (had to edit )
 

·
9 Cans of Ravioli
Joined
·
20,787 Posts
Probably should include RAM speed in the results?

And no idea if I was supposed to submit my actual clocks or my turbo clocks so I just submitted my base clocks. Just kind of confused why my i5 6400 is out performing an i5 6500 unless it's down to RAM speed.
 
1 - 20 of 219 Posts
Top