# Excel Benchmark



## The Pook

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


----------



## ir88ed

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.


----------



## The Pook

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.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Pook*
> 
> 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.


That sucks.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Nice man!! This is interesting for sure









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


----------



## bajer29

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


----------



## daffy.duck

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


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daffy.duck*
> 
> 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.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> 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.


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> Nice man!! This is interesting for sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


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.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spinFX*
> 
> 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.


----------



## huzzug

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


----------



## moustang

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


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> 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








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.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> 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!


----------



## huzzug

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


----------



## moustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## killerhz

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 )


----------



## The Pook

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.


----------



## Panther Al

Gonna try this when I get home from the office. Kinda curious now myself, and wonder how much high core counts help (Running 6950X),


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panther Al*
> 
> Gonna try this when I get home from the office. Kinda curious now myself, and wonder how much high core counts help (Running 6950X),


Please do! Enterprise had mentioned he was going to give his 16-core 1950x threadripper a go, so the two of these will be a fascinating comparison (non-geeks will roll their eyes at this point).


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Pook*
> 
> 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.


huzzug has done a few upgrades to the sheet, including a built-in timer. The numbers may bounce around a bit while the benchmark is finalized, but it is easy to run so just download the newest version and see where you fall. Also, there may be many reasons why an individual PC runs faster or slower than a similar machine, so I don't see any reason not to include mem speed in the chart.


----------



## The Pook

RAM is only running at DDR4-3066 since I was having problems with crashing in PUBG at XMP DDR4-3600. Why am I beating 7700Ks at much higher clocks?










Quote:


> CPU: i5 6400 Skylake
> #CPU cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 2.7GHz
> Total system memory: 8GB
> RAM Speed: DDR4-3066
> Excel ver: 2016
> Time to sort (in seconds): 98.45 seconds


----------



## Panther Al

Huh.

6950X, 10c/20t, at 4.0GHz, 32GB RAM at 2666, Excel 2007, 167s. Will have to see what might not be working right, else it might be the ancient Excel I am running.

*emit*

Did another run - this time with the original file, no real difference in time. However, after a few false starts, loaded up HWMonitor, and noticed that it appears that Excel 2007 only seems to feed two cores. Interesting to know.


----------



## huzzug

I think MS added ability to use more than 2 cores to it's Office products with Office 2010. Also @ OP, if you're looking to do work with data, you should try to get PowerPivot addon onto your excel '10 or later. It's attuned to some of the tasks data scientists do with other software's.

With the current excel results, can some of you try to adjust your overclocks on your systems to see how the results variate.

Update: Excel (2010 & later) use multiple cores with formulas but when running macros, it's limited to one core. On my system, it pegs my Core 3 @ ~90% whereas others hover ~25-30%.

This bench could give ipc differences between cpu (don't know why pook is getting the result what he's getting), but I'd like to know the how the scores variate when changing cpu speed and ram speeds.


----------



## moustang

OK, I've done some memory timings tweaking on my system. Now running 3600 speed memory with 15-15-15-35 timings. Some minor tweaks to the advance timings.

Downloaded the latest file and this is what I got....

CPU: 8700K
#CPU cores: 6
CPU clock speed: 5.1GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
RAM Speed: 3600 @ 15-15-15-35 timings)
Excel ver: 2010
Time to sort (in seconds): 86.84 seconds



**** EDIT***

I just noticed that on the first page I'm listed as having an 8600K. That's incorrect. I have an 8700K.CPU.


----------



## moustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panther Al*
> 
> Huh.
> 
> 6950X, 10c/20t, at 4.0GHz, 32GB RAM at 2666, Excel 2007, 167s. Will have to see what might not be working right, else it might be the ancient Excel I am running.
> 
> *emit*
> 
> Did another run - this time with the original file, no real difference in time. However, after a few false starts, loaded up HWMonitor, and noticed that it appears that Excel 2007 only seems to feed two cores. Interesting to know.


I've now run the test 3 times with HWMonitor running. A few things I've noted from it.

#1. This Excel benchmark never uses more than 2 cores.
#2. Even on the two cores it's using the CPU load is very small. My individual core temperatures never exceeded 45C while running this benchmark but they routinely hit 55C when running something like 3DMark or gaming, and have hit 63C under Prime95 stress testing. This benchmark is making very little use of the CPU
#3. Based off my first result compared with my latest result I'm convinced that this Excel test is primarily influenced by RAM speeds. I got a 5 second drop in processing time without changing a single thing other than RAM timings in my system.


----------



## huzzug

I made a little bigger change to the way the file benchmarks. I've changed how the final data is being sorted since that column is dependent on the data at the rear columns. The changes that I've made:

1. Truncated the data from the original 60,000 odd rows to just 1,000 rows where every cell is being calculated.
2. You need not close the file and restart to get correct score. The file now should be consistent whether you're benchmarking for the first time or 10th.

With just the above changes, the file takes ~3 times the time it took to bench the first time, while also pegging the main thread ~70-90%. Currently, the cells are only doing additions, divisions and getting averages across a small range of cells. I'd like to know any more suggestions that you guys like to see implemented.

P.S. I'm not an advanced user with VBA's, so I may not be able to accomplish everything that you may have in mind, but do let me know and I'll try to incorporate them.

Data1000.zip 1282k .zip file


I let the original file run on my work system the entire night with the changes that I made. My core 3 seems to be pegged at more than 70% and rest of the cores are pegged ~ 30.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> I just noticed that on the first page I'm listed as having an 8600K. That's incorrect. I have an 8700K.CPU.


Updated


----------



## AlphaC

Have you seen these for Monte Carlo?
https://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page3.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/1497-intel-core-i7-8700k/
https://us.hardware.info/reviews/7602/11/intel-core-i7-8700k--i5-8600k--i5-8400-coffee-lake-review-affordable-six-cores-benchmarks-web-browsing-and-microsoft-office-word-and-excel-2016n
https://www.hardwareluxx.ru/index.php/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/43220-coffee-lake-intel-core-i7-8700k-i5-8600k-i5-8400-test.html?start=6
https://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3990&page=3
https://www.benchmark.rs/artikal/test_intel_coffee_lake_-_core_i7_8700k_i_core_i5_8600k-4439/9

"Big Number crunch"
https://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/procesory-pameti/48751?start=9

Black Scholes
https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i7_8700k__core_i5_8400/5.htm

Would be interesting to compare Excel 2010 and 2016. Excel 2010 has less bloat.

edit:
first run of the original sheet without timer on Sandy Bridge i5-2500K @ 4.6GHz is just under 3 min 20s ( < 200seconds) , 2x4GB DDR3 1600 CL9, with a ton of other stuff open & running Excel 2016 on Win 7 Pro

huzzug's test had 183.25seconds spit out on that machine when I closed Firefox and other stuff (I still had all the background apps such as antivirus).

There's something horribly wrong with this test's multi-threading if I can score nearly as high as any i7 newer than 2nd gen.

Running huzzug's test in Excel 2016 on a Ryzen 7 1700X set to stock clocks results in 30.28 seconds , 2nd run 28.97seconds. I'll have to retest it a few times , the CPU usage is really low.
2x8GB DDR4 3200 CL16 (Hynix with manual timings)
Excel 2016 , Windows 7 Pro



The original sheet on the same setup resulted in about 3 min 29 seconds (=209 seconds) , with the Process Monitor showing on average 6% CPU usage (so horribly single threaded , as 1/16 ~ 6% of CPU). A subsequent run on a different column resulted in 3 min 19 seconds (=199 seconds) so it may be sensitive to XFR kicking in faster.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I made a little bigger change to the way the file benchmarks. I've changed how the final data is being sorted since that column is dependent on the data at the rear columns. The changes that I've made:
> 
> 1. Truncated the data from the original 60,000 odd rows to just 1,000 rows where every cell is being calculated.
> 2. You need not close the file and restart to get correct score. The file now should be consistent whether you're benchmarking for the first time or 10th.
> 
> With just the above changes, the file takes ~3 times the time it took to bench the first time, while also pegging the main thread ~70-90%. Currently, the cells are only doing additions, divisions and getting averages across a small range of cells. I'd like to know any more suggestions that you guys like to see implemented.
> 
> P.S. I'm not an advanced user with VBA's, so I may not be able to accomplish everything that you may have in mind, but do let me know and I'll try to incorporate them.
> 
> Data1000.zip 1282k .zip file
> 
> 
> I let the original file run on my work system the entire night with the changes that I made. My core 3 seems to be pegged at more than 70% and rest of the cores are pegged ~ 30.
> [\SPOILER]


I am hesitant to replace the benchmark after people have already made runs and data collection has started, but I could include it on the top post as a better threaded option with a second spreadsheet when we are sure it is what we want.

I am doing a benchmark time by CPU speed (3.0 --> 4.8Ghz) graph now, and hope to have data up soon. Short answer is that CPU speed does affect sort time (at least on my machine), and clearly all cores are not being pegged to 100%. This is an Excel benchmark after all, and I was hoping that this benchmark would reflect real-world performance of Excel and allow users to make informed decisions about build specs.


----------



## huzzug

Currently trying to research more options to spread load across multiple threads and better utilization. From what I've gathered these past few days is that excel cannot utilize more than one core / thread if you're using VBA (mine does use VBA) but general calculations within the sheets with formulas can run parallel (it's why you see ~25% utilization on my sheets on other cores).

My file to me seems to be a mix of both, but I'm still looking to incorporate lookups to tie in RAM with proc usage as well.

It will take time since I find 2 hours to spend in the evening on this, so I'll be a little slow with updates.

My next goal is to find what gives better utilization across threads as well as to get consistent loads on each core.


----------



## AlphaC

My observation :The original file , with simply clicking the column filter (column heading) and hitting "sort by smallest to largest" results in a horribly singlethreaded test. There's no way an i5 is faster than a i7-6950x.

ir88ed : I'm unsure of the purpose of sorting the columns , but if you need to sort multiple times you might consider using a Pivot Table or using MATLAB code to process the data in parallel and then spitting it back out into the Excel sheet as a new sheet altogether.


----------



## huzzug

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> My observation :The original file , with simply clicking the column filter (column heading) and hitting "sort by smallest to largest" results in a horribly singlethreaded test. There's no way an i5 is faster than a i7-6950x.
> 
> ir88ed : I'm unsure of the purpose of sorting the columns , but if you need to sort multiple times you might consider using a Pivot Table or using MATLAB code to process the data in parallel and then spitting it back out into the Excel sheet as a new sheet altogether.


I like this suggestion, but wouldn't that basically be benchmarking MATLAB and not Excel ?


----------



## AlphaC

My point is Excel installed normally (i.e. no custom install) is default 32 bit.


----------



## huzzug

But, how would that affect benching excel ?


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> But, how would that affect benching excel ?


64 bit might be better









Especially for over 4 GB of virtual RAM...

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vba/excel-vba/articles/excel-performance-and-limit-improvements
Quote:


> *Large data sets and the 64-bit version of Excel*
> 
> The 64-bit version of Excel 2010 is not constrained to 2 GB of RAM like the 32-bit version applications. Therefore, the 64-bit version of Excel 2010 enables users to create much larger workbooks. The 64-bit version of Windows enables a larger addressable memory capacity, and Excel is designed to take advantage of that capacity. For example, users are able to fill more of the grid with data than was possible in previous versions of Excel. As more RAM is added to the computer, Excel uses that additional memory, allows larger and larger workbooks, and scales with the amount of RAM available.
> 
> In addition, because the 64-bit version of Excel enables larger data sets, both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Excel 2010 introduce improvements to common large data set tasks such as entering and filling down data, sorting, filtering, and copying and pasting data. Memory usage is also optimized to be more efficient in both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Excel.


Quote:


> *Calculation improvements*
> 
> Starting in Excel 2007, multithreaded calculation improved calculation performance.
> 
> Starting in Excel 2010, additional performance improvements were made to further increase calculation speed. Excel 2010 can call user-defined functions asynchronously. Calling functions asynchronously improves performance by allowing several calculations to run at the same time. When you run user-defined functions on a compute cluster, calling functions asynchronously enables several computers to be used to complete the calculations. For more information, see Asynchronous User-Defined Functions.
> 
> *Multi-core processing*
> 
> Excel 2010 made additional investments to take advantage of multi-core processors and increase performance for routine tasks. Starting in Excel 2010, the following features use multi-core processors: saving a file, opening a file, refreshing a PivotTable (for external data sources, except OLAP and SharePoint), sorting a cell table, sorting a PivotTable, and auto-sizing a column.
> 
> For operations that involve reading and loading or writing data, such as opening a file, saving a file, or refreshing data, splitting the operation into two processes increases performance speed. The first process gets the data, and the second process loads the data into the appropriate structure in memory or writes the data to a file. In this way, as soon as the first process begins reading a portion of data, the second process can immediately start loading or writing that data, while the first process continues to read the next portion of data. Previously, the first process had to finish reading all the data in a certain section before the second process could load that section of the data into memory or write the data to a file.


https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vba/excel-vba/articles/excel-improving-calcuation-performance
Quote:


> *Drill-down approach to finding obstructions*
> 
> The drill-down approach starts by timing the calculation of the workbook, the calculation of each worksheet, and the blocks of formulas on slow-calculating sheets. Do each step in order and note the calculation times.
> To find obstructions using the drill-down approach
> 
> Ensure that you have only one workbook open and no other tasks are running.
> 
> Set calculation to manual.
> 
> Make a backup copy of the workbook.
> 
> Open the workbook that contains the Calculation Timers macros, or add them to the workbook.
> 
> Check the used range by pressing Ctrl+End on each worksheet in turn.
> 
> This shows where the last used cell is. If this is beyond where you expect it to be, consider deleting the excess columns and rows and saving the workbook. For more information, see the "Minimizing the used range" section in Excel performance: Tips for optimizing performance obstructions.
> 
> Run the FullCalcTimer macro.
> 
> The time to calculate all the formulas in the workbook is usually the worst-case time.
> 
> Run the RecalcTimer macro.
> 
> A recalculation immediately after a full calculation usually gives you the best-case time.
> 
> Calculate workbook volatility as the ratio of recalculation time to full calculation time.
> 
> This measures the extent to which volatile formulas and the evaluation of the calculation chain are obstructions.
> 
> Activate each sheet and run the SheetTimer macro in turn.
> 
> Because you just recalculated the workbook, this gives you the recalculate time for each worksheet. This should enable you to determine which ones are the problem worksheets.
> 
> Run the RangeTimer macro on selected blocks of formulas.
> 
> For each problem worksheet, divide the columns or rows into a small number of blocks.
> 
> Select each block in turn, and then run the RangeTimer macro on the block.
> 
> If necessary, drill down further by subdividing each block into a smaller number of blocks.
> 
> Prioritize the obstructions.
> 
> *
> Speeding up calculations and reducing obstructions
> *
> It is not the number of formulas or the size of a workbook that consumes the calculation time. It is the number of cell references and calculation operations, and the efficiency of the functions being used.
> 
> Because most worksheets are constructed by copying formulas that contain a mixture of absolute and relative references, they usually contain a large number of formulas that contain repeated or duplicated calculations and references.
> 
> Avoid complex mega-formulas and array formulas. In general, it is better to have more rows and columns and fewer complex calculations. This gives both the smart recalculation and the multithreaded calculation in Excel a better opportunity to optimize the calculations. It is also easier to understand and debug. The following are a few rules to help you speed up workbook calculations.


In particular
Quote:


> Avoid single-threaded functions:
> 
> PHONETIC
> CELL when either the "format" or "address" argument is used
> INDIRECT
> GETPIVOTDATA
> CUBEMEMBER
> CUBEVALUE
> CUBEMEMBERPROPERTY
> CUBESET
> CUBERANKEDMEMBER
> CUBEKPIMEMBER
> CUBESETCOUNT
> ADDRESS where the fifth parameter (the sheet_name) is given
> Any database function (DSUM, DAVERAGE, and so on) that refers to a pivot table
> ERROR.TYPE
> HYPERLINK
> VBA and COM add-in user defined functions


----------



## huzzug

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> But, how would that affect benching excel ?
> 
> 
> 
> 64 bit might be better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially for over 4 GB of virtual RAM...
> 
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vba/excel-vba/articles/excel-performance-and-limit-improvements
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Large data sets and the 64-bit version of Excel*
> 
> The 64-bit version of Excel 2010 is not constrained to 2 GB of RAM like the 32-bit version applications. Therefore, the 64-bit version of Excel 2010 enables users to create much larger workbooks. The 64-bit version of Windows enables a larger addressable memory capacity, and Excel is designed to take advantage of that capacity. For example, users are able to fill more of the grid with data than was possible in previous versions of Excel. As more RAM is added to the computer, Excel uses that additional memory, allows larger and larger workbooks, and scales with the amount of RAM available.
> 
> In addition, because the 64-bit version of Excel enables larger data sets, both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Excel 2010 introduce improvements to common large data set tasks such as entering and filling down data, sorting, filtering, and copying and pasting data. Memory usage is also optimized to be more efficient in both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Excel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Calculation improvements*
> 
> Starting in Excel 2007, multithreaded calculation improved calculation performance.
> 
> Starting in Excel 2010, additional performance improvements were made to further increase calculation speed. Excel 2010 can call user-defined functions asynchronously. Calling functions asynchronously improves performance by allowing several calculations to run at the same time. When you run user-defined functions on a compute cluster, calling functions asynchronously enables several computers to be used to complete the calculations. For more information, see Asynchronous User-Defined Functions.
> 
> *Multi-core processing*
> 
> Excel 2010 made additional investments to take advantage of multi-core processors and increase performance for routine tasks. Starting in Excel 2010, the following features use multi-core processors: saving a file, opening a file, refreshing a PivotTable (for external data sources, except OLAP and SharePoint), sorting a cell table, sorting a PivotTable, and auto-sizing a column.
> 
> For operations that involve reading and loading or writing data, such as opening a file, saving a file, or refreshing data, splitting the operation into two processes increases performance speed. The first process gets the data, and the second process loads the data into the appropriate structure in memory or writes the data to a file. In this way, as soon as the first process begins reading a portion of data, the second process can immediately start loading or writing that data, while the first process continues to read the next portion of data. Previously, the first process had to finish reading all the data in a certain section before the second process could load that section of the data into memory or write the data to a file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vba/excel-vba/articles/excel-improving-calcuation-performance
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drill-down approach to finding obstructions*
> 
> The drill-down approach starts by timing the calculation of the workbook, the calculation of each worksheet, and the blocks of formulas on slow-calculating sheets. Do each step in order and note the calculation times.
> To find obstructions using the drill-down approach
> 
> Ensure that you have only one workbook open and no other tasks are running.
> 
> Set calculation to manual.
> 
> Make a backup copy of the workbook.
> 
> Open the workbook that contains the Calculation Timers macros, or add them to the workbook.
> 
> Check the used range by pressing Ctrl+End on each worksheet in turn.
> 
> This shows where the last used cell is. If this is beyond where you expect it to be, consider deleting the excess columns and rows and saving the workbook. For more information, see the "Minimizing the used range" section in Excel performance: Tips for optimizing performance obstructions.
> 
> Run the FullCalcTimer macro.
> 
> The time to calculate all the formulas in the workbook is usually the worst-case time.
> 
> Run the RecalcTimer macro.
> 
> A recalculation immediately after a full calculation usually gives you the best-case time.
> 
> Calculate workbook volatility as the ratio of recalculation time to full calculation time.
> 
> This measures the extent to which volatile formulas and the evaluation of the calculation chain are obstructions.
> 
> Activate each sheet and run the SheetTimer macro in turn.
> 
> Because you just recalculated the workbook, this gives you the recalculate time for each worksheet. This should enable you to determine which ones are the problem worksheets.
> 
> Run the RangeTimer macro on selected blocks of formulas.
> 
> For each problem worksheet, divide the columns or rows into a small number of blocks.
> 
> Select each block in turn, and then run the RangeTimer macro on the block.
> 
> If necessary, drill down further by subdividing each block into a smaller number of blocks.
> 
> Prioritize the obstructions.
> 
> *
> Speeding up calculations and reducing obstructions
> *
> It is not the number of formulas or the size of a workbook that consumes the calculation time. It is the number of cell references and calculation operations, and the efficiency of the functions being used.
> 
> Because most worksheets are constructed by copying formulas that contain a mixture of absolute and relative references, they usually contain a large number of formulas that contain repeated or duplicated calculations and references.
> 
> Avoid complex mega-formulas and array formulas. In general, it is better to have more rows and columns and fewer complex calculations. This gives both the smart recalculation and the multithreaded calculation in Excel a better opportunity to optimize the calculations. It is also easier to understand and debug. The following are a few rules to help you speed up workbook calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In particular
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoid single-threaded functions:
> 
> PHONETIC
> CELL when either the "format" or "address" argument is used
> INDIRECT
> GETPIVOTDATA
> CUBEMEMBER
> CUBEVALUE
> CUBEMEMBERPROPERTY
> CUBESET
> CUBERANKEDMEMBER
> CUBEKPIMEMBER
> CUBESETCOUNT
> ADDRESS where the fifth parameter (the sheet_name) is given
> Any database function (DSUM, DAVERAGE, and so on) that refers to a pivot table
> ERROR.TYPE
> HYPERLINK
> VBA and COM add-in user defined functions
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I've seen the advantages to using 64bit, but VBS still work on one thread and seems to be 32bit. The general functions within excel are what can utilize more cores. My question is more to do with the current excel bench because I doubt you're excel is occupying more than 200MB of RAM even with 32bit.


----------



## NightAntilli

Just for fun, I tried it with my FX-8320, but, it is using only one core in Excel 2013, resulting in a time of 218.68 seconds;

CPU: FX-8320
#CPU cores: 8
CPU clock speed: 4.5 GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
RAM speed: 1866 MHz
Excel ver: 2013
Time to sort (in seconds): 218.68 seconds


----------



## stealth83

CPU: i7 6700K
#CPU cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 4.0/4.2GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
RAM Speed: DDR4-3000
Excel ver: 2010
Time to sort (in seconds): 109.12 seconds


----------



## airisom2

I tried the benchmark in LibreOffice Calc and got 62 seconds on my rig.


----------



## huzzug

Does Libre support VBA? Also, what are your system specs?


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airisom2*
> 
> I tried the benchmark in LibreOffice Calc and got 62 seconds on my rig.


I tried the same thing before I started this thread. LibreOffice was really fast on the sort. Then it immediately crashed. Not slinging mud, just my experience. Even if that was a fluke, it seemed a bit clunky, kind of a middle ground between google sheets and Excel.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> Just for fun, I tried it with my FX-8320, but, it is using only one core in Excel 2013, resulting in a time of 218.68 seconds;
> 
> CPU: FX-8320
> #CPU cores: 8
> CPU clock speed: 4.5 GHz
> Total system memory: 16GB
> RAM speed: 1866 MHz
> Excel ver: 2013
> Time to sort (in seconds): 218.68 seconds


Added


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stealth83*
> 
> CPU: i7 6700K
> #CPU cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 4.0/4.2GHz
> Total system memory: 16GB
> RAM Speed: DDR4-3000
> Excel ver: 2010
> Time to sort (in seconds): 109.12 seconds


Added


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> 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.


Yeah well if you want the ease of use for quick, once-off databases you could use Access, but it's probably the worst of all database software haha.
There are quick ways to get databases (eg some flavour of sql) going quite quickly, and then doing sorts and calcs etc would be done with SQL. Obviously this would require learning that language but once you did you would have far more power at your fingertips for doing your calcs and analysis.

But hey, if you can get it done in excel and you can do it 2 minutes, I guess that is the right program


----------



## airisom2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> Does Libre support VBA? Also, what are your system specs?


It seems to run the macro fine, and all I had to do disable the macro security. I don't think LO is 100% compatible with VBA code, though. The rig is in my sig; 4.3GHz 4930K, 16GB 2400MHz. Your 1,000 line benchmark was abysmally slow on LO, like two seconds per row slow.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> I tried the same thing before I started this thread. LibreOffice was really fast on the sort. Then it immediately crashed. Not slinging mud, just my experience. Even if that was a fluke, it seemed a bit clunky, kind of a middle ground between google sheets and Excel.


Strange. The spreadsheet was really unresponsive with the zoom at 55%, and changing it to 100% made things normal. That might help.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> With the current excel results, can some of you try to adjust your overclocks on your systems to see how the results variate.
> 
> This bench could give ipc differences between cpu (don't know why pook is getting the result what he's getting), but I'd like to know the how the scores variate when changing cpu speed and ram speeds.


Below is a graph of sort times in Excel 2016 by CPU speed. It is clear from the graph that processor speed is playing a large role in performance in this benchmark. I will repeat one or more of the frequencies with slower ram speed to see if that has an effect.

Here are some notes:
- Speeds between 3.0 and 4.8GHz were tested with at least two replicates (except the 3GHz which has only one)
- Each frequency tested was done with a freshly booted system with no other windows open
- Replicates were done with a freshly opened spreadsheet
- Replicates beyond the second one showed significantly lower sort times than the first two, and were not included. For frequencies with more than two replicates, the system was rebooted and a second round of testing was done.



Also, data if you are interested:
GHz Sort Time (s)
3 124.35
3.1 121.25 120.9 121.82 121.15
3.2 118.87 118.73
3.3
3.4 111.75 114.3
3.5
3.6 105.77 109.29
3.7
3.8 105.89 107.44
3.9
4 103.24 103.46
4.1
4.2 100.53 101.16
4.3
4.4 98.66 98.84
4.5
4.6 96.73 95.02
4.7
4.8 92.5 90.14


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> Downloaded the latest file and this is what I got....
> 
> CPU: 8700K
> #CPU cores: 6
> CPU clock speed: 5.1GHz
> Total system memory: 16GB
> RAM Speed: 3600 @ 15-15-15-35 timings)
> Excel ver: 2010
> Time to sort (in seconds): 86.84 seconds


I reran my sorts in a more controlled fashion and ended with slower overall times. This moves you to first place... for now








Not surprising given the blistering 5.1GHz OC. Respect.


----------



## japau

I run the benchmark on 8700k It seems to only run on one core so no multi threading for excel? checked thread usage with HWInfo64 while the benchmark ran.


----------



## Happy Hepo

CPU: i5 4670K
#Cores: 4 (no HT)
CPU clock speed: 4,3 GHz
Total system memory: 16 GB
memory speed: 1866MHz
Excel ver.: 2013
time to sort in seconds: 130,43


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> I run the benchmark on 8700k It seems to only run on one core so no multi threading for excel? checked thread usage with HWInfo64 while the benchmark ran.


Which excel version? Sounds like multi-threading came on in 2010.


----------



## japau

Newest Office 2016 professional (windows 10 pro 64bit)

I managed to run 95sec so its in line with the other posters, so i think none has seen 100% usage on all threads.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> Newest Office 2016 professional (windows 10 pro 64bit)
> 
> I managed to run 95sec so its in line with the other posters, so i think none has seen 100% usage on all threads.


To be fair, the purpose of the benchmark is not a CPU benchmark, but rather a way to see what systems perform best with regards to Excel usage.

I wanted people who are building a workstation around Excel and were on the fence between a 7700k and a 1700x (like me) to have data to back up their build decisions.


----------



## LostParticle




----------



## ENTERPRISE

Great idea, will test my system tommorow.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Firstly, awesome project! I am so impressed at how far this project has come in just a week. I want to thank @ir88ed and @huzzug, good work guys!

I did some testing with my 14 core chip today. I tested a few different variables to see what effects the total run time. The results are surprising to say the least.

Here is my test setup:

New install of W8.1 64
Office Pro 2010

Core/Thread Testing i9 7940X
*14 Cores / 28 Threads = 93.93 seconds*
*14 Cores / 14 Threads = 93.26 seconds*
*2 Cores / 2 Threads = 93.29 seconds*

In the pictures below you can see, there is basically no scaling potential with core/thread count. If you watch the cores while the bench is running you will see that only 50% of 1 core is being utilized. The score difference is negligible.


Spoiler: Core Test Screenshots



14/28


14/14


2/2




Amount of Memory
*31.8 Gb usable by OS = 93.93 seconds*
*2.4 Gb usable by OS = 93.68 seconds*

I am using quad channel (8x4) for both tests. To test less memory I used a console command to limit the amount of memory the OS can use. I reused the 32GB score from my core testing since its the same 14/28 for the baseline. As you can see, there is basically no scaling potential with the physical amount of memory. The score difference is negligible.


Spoiler: Amount of Memory Screenshots



31.8Gb System Memory


2.41Gb System Memory




Memory Timings
*CL16-16-16-36 2T = 93.68 seconds*
*CL12-11-11-24 1T = 91.4 seconds*
For this test I will compare the timings only. The DRAM frequency will be 3600 for both tests. The test only compares super tight timings vs XMP timings. In order to run super tight memory with high frequency in 64bit OS's, the amount of memory used by the OS needs to be less than 4gb. For this test I will reuse my result from the memory quantity testing as the baseline.

Finally we see a gain!! This is logical, we expect the performance to be increased with tight timings.


Spoiler: Memory Timings Screenshots



3600 CL16-16-16-36 2T


3600 CL12-11-11-24 1T




Thats all for now, but I have more tests planned for the future. Next time I run some LN2 on 7740X, I will try and run this bench at high frequencies and see what happens


----------



## huzzug

I still have the test with the entire 60K rows of data, but also 10K & 5K as well. Let me know if anyone of you want to run them as well. For giggles


----------



## AlphaC

Tested Ryzen 7 1700X at stock again.

There's some variance on XFR kicking in and also with antivirus.

Original sheet without timer is roughly 3 min 24 seconds. My original run the other day had 3 min 29 seconds on first run.

Huzzug's variation with a fresh boot obtained 212.46 seconds. I noticed the antivirus icon kick in on the first run. Closing Excel and running again resulted in 199.29 seconds.

I really don't know what to make of it because I definitely obtained 30 seconds the other day.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Tested Ryzen 7 1700X at stock again.
> 
> There's some variance on XFR kicking in and also with antivirus.
> 
> Original sheet without timer is roughly 3 min 24 seconds. My original run the other day had 3 min 29 seconds on first run.
> 
> Huzzug's variation with a fresh boot obtained 212.46 seconds. I noticed the antivirus icon kick in on the first run. Closing Excel and running again resulted in 199.29 seconds.
> 
> I really don't know what to make of it because I definitely obtained 30 seconds the other day.


Hmmm... We have a 1600 Ryzen that did a 106 on the original sheet.
The 30 second run sounds like the results you get when you hit the button a second time and the sheet is already presorted.
1700X should beat a 1600 in clock speed alone, so >200 seconds makes me think something is amiss. I would be expecting a number in the 90's or low 100's.


----------



## AlphaC

I did a full redownload of the file and rebooted and ran the benchmark straight off the overclock.net site.

I obtained 199.18 seconds.

less than 100 seconds suggests multi-thread kicked in. Their Ryzen 5 was overclocked to 3.9 (which is the XFR speed of R7 1700X).

edit: for all intents and purposes, you should base your conclusions around 200 seconds , since when I manually timed I obtained roughly 3 min 25 seconds or so. We know Ryzen IPC is around Haswell and my Sandy Bridge system was also around 200 seconds when overclocked to 4.6.

edit2: you should adjust OP to note that you cannot run the benchmark more than once without reopening it.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> I did a full redownload of the file and rebooted and ran the benchmark straight off the overclock.net site.
> 
> I obtained 199.18 seconds.
> 
> less than 100 seconds suggests multi-thread kicked in.


Any chance that "enable multi-threaded" option is not selected? Excel Options -> advanced -> formulas -> enable multi-threaded calculation

I think that is set by default, but grasping at straws here.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> you should adjust OP to note that you cannot run the benchmark more than once without reopening it.


Good point. I will make it clearer.


----------



## AlphaC

I checked, it is not the case. It just had 5-6% CPU usage (1 thread) even though 16 were available.

edit: He's on Windows 10 x 64.


----------



## japau

CPU: i7 8700k
#CPU cores: 6c/12t
CPU clock speed: 5000 / 4500 Cache
Total system memory: 16GB
RAM Speed: DDR4-4000-17-17-17-2T
Excel ver: 2016 Pro
Time to sort (in seconds): 95.42 seconds

Cheers!


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Any chance that "enable multi-threaded" option is not selected? Excel Options -> advanced -> formulas -> enable multi-threaded calculation


I will check this out on my test OS too. As it stands right now it looks like most of the scaling is coming from core/cache, none from core count/HT for Excel 2010.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Tested Ryzen 7 1700X at stock again.
> 
> There's some variance on XFR kicking in and also with antivirus.
> 
> Original sheet without timer is roughly 3 min 24 seconds. My original run the other day had 3 min 29 seconds on first run.
> 
> *Huzzug's variation with a fresh boot obtained 212.46 seconds.* I noticed the antivirus icon kick in on the first run. Closing Excel and running again resulted in 199.29 seconds.
> 
> I really don't know what to make of it because I definitely obtained 30 seconds the other day.


Something must be wrong. My FX-8320 got 218 seconds. There's no way a 1700X is equally as slow. Throttling?


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> Something must be wrong. My FX-8320 got 218 seconds. There's no way a 1700X is equally as slow. Throttling?


Nope. It is AIDA64 AVX / Prime 95 AVX stable, there's no way it is throttling with only one core used.

The CPU wasn't overclocked in these tests. All that shows is 3.5-3.9GHz (depending on XFR kicking in) is roughly faster than 4.6GHz FX-8320 for these types of workloads.

The biggest difference is I'm running Windows 7 Pro x 64 on a fully loaded system with antivirus, not a clean one. Pausing antivirus (without clean restart) results in a score of around 199 seconds. I'd say 200 seconds is about right , even with antivirus on and 2nd run on the same boot I had ~200 seconds.

edit: ran ExcelTrader benchmark


(http://exceltrader.net/984/benchmark_et-xls-an-excel-benchmark-for-traders/)
top is back when system was clean


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Tested Ryzen 7 1700X at stock again.
> 
> There's some variance on XFR kicking in and also with antivirus.
> 
> Original sheet without timer is roughly 3 min 24 seconds. My original run the other day had 3 min 29 seconds on first run.
> 
> Huzzug's variation with a fresh boot obtained 212.46 seconds. I noticed the antivirus icon kick in on the first run. Closing Excel and running again resulted in 199.29 seconds.
> 
> I really don't know what to make of it because I definitely obtained 30 seconds the other day.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... We have a 1600 Ryzen that did a 106 on the original sheet.
> The 30 second run sounds like the results you get when you hit the button a second time and the sheet is already presorted.
> 1700X should beat a 1600 in clock speed alone, so >200 seconds makes me think something is amiss. I would be expecting a number in the 90's or low 100's.
Click to expand...

Like this?


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## ir88ed

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.

Best way is to reboot the system, open the sheet and sort only one time.


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> 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.
> 
> Best way is to reboot the system, open the sheet and sort only one time.


I get roughly the same numbers as alpha C does on the benches he is referencing using my 1800X when running them properly.


----------



## AlphaC

At least we confirmed it is not Windows 7 that's making a difference


----------



## cssorkinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> At least we confirmed it is not Windows 7 that's making a difference


Piqued my curiosity anyhow. 188 seconds first run second 30 seconds - win 10, 64 bit . 69 on the bench you provided.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Any chance that "enable multi-threaded" option is not selected? Excel Options -> advanced -> formulas -> enable multi-threaded calculation


In my copy of 2010 it was not enabled by default. However, once enabled the score didn't really change much. The score changed from 91.4 > 90.92

CPU: i9 7940X
#CPU cores: 14c/28t
CPU clock speed: 5g
Total system memory: 2.4GB
RAM Speed: 3600c12
Excel ver: 2010 Pro
Time to sort (in seconds): 90.92 seconds


----------



## cssorkinman

Forgot to mention that it was with excel 2016.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cssorkinman*
> 
> I get roughly the same numbers as alpha C does on the benches he is referencing using my 1800X when running them properly.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> At least we confirmed it is not Windows 7 that's making a difference


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> In my copy of 2010 it was not enabled by default. However, once enabled the score didn't really change much. The score changed from 91.4 > 90.92
> 
> CPU: i9 7940X
> #CPU cores: 14c/28t
> CPU clock speed: 5g
> Total system memory: 2.4GB
> RAM Speed: 3600c12
> Excel ver: 2010 Pro
> Time to sort (in seconds): 90.92 seconds


Updated. Really 2.4GB ram?
Edt: NM, I see 32GB on your screenshot


----------



## LostParticle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LostParticle*


@ir88ed, I've submitted my benchmark approx. two days ago (post #56). Why am I not added in the chart?

i7-4790K, 4c 8t, per core OC: x48, x49, x49, x50, cache x44
16 GB DDR3, 2400 MHz, 10-11-12-24, 1T
Office 2016 Pro Plus 64 bit
Win 10 Pro
Benchmark time: 82:59 seconds


----------



## huzzug

I made a few further changes to the workbook.

Data1000.zip 193k .zip file


Also, you need not close the workbook to re-run the bench. It should provide consistent score.


----------



## LostParticle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> I made a few further changes to the workbook.
> 
> Data1000.zip 0k .zip file
> 
> 
> Also, you need not close the workbook to re-run the bench. It should provide consistent score.


I cannot extract your zipped file. Here's what I get:


----------



## LostParticle

I've loaded my all core x47 OC profile, cache x44. I rerun the benchmark once, right after rebooting.



Win 10 Pro, Office 2016 Pro.
16 GB DDR3, 2400 MHz, 10-11-12-24, 1T


----------



## huzzug

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LostParticle*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> I made a few further changes to the workbook.
> 
> Data1000.zip 0k .zip file
> 
> 
> Also, you need not close the workbook to re-run the bench. It should provide consistent score.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot extract your zipped file. Here's what I get:
Click to expand...

Goofed up. You can try the new link now


----------



## LostParticle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> Goofed up. You can try the new link now


Okay, now it works.

My results (configuration given in my previous post):


----------



## huzzug

Is that bench with the latest file? Something seems amiss. It takes my system ~an hour to complete the bench. How are you able to finish it within that time?


----------



## ENTERPRISE

CPU: Threadripper 1950X
#CPU cores: 16
CPU clock speed: 4.1GHz
Total system memory: 32GB
Excel ver: 2016
Time to sort (in seconds): 95.44

Looks like Excel favours core speed vs core count.


----------



## AlphaC

ENTERPRISE, how is that possible that a Threadripper at 4.1GHz is 2x faster than Ryzen 7? (assuming multi-threading has no effects)

There has to be some sort of memory channel and latency dependence , as IPC and clockspeeds are similar.

This thread definitely needs more datapoints.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> ENTERPRISE, how is that possible that a Threadripper at 4.1GHz is 2x faster than Ryzen 7? (assuming multi-threading has no effects)
> 
> There has to be some sort of memory channel and latency dependence , as IPC and clockspeeds are similar.
> 
> This thread definitely needs more datapoints.


I am unsure, I am also currently running my Memory at 3200Mhz (Quad Channel) with timings of 14-14-14-28 combined with my 1950x @ 4.1Ghz. Other than that I can see no other particular factors. I ran the bench multiple times, this is definitely a correct score.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ENTERPRISE*
> 
> I am unsure, I am also currently running my Memory at 3200Mhz (Quad Channel) with timings of 14-14-14-28 combined with my 1950x @ 4.1Ghz. Other than that I can see no other particular factors. I ran the bench multiple times, this is definitely a correct score.


Added.

Very interesting that Excel clearly gains from core speed, but still the 1950X with one of the lower clock speeds so far is able to knock out a pretty fast bench.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> This thread definitely needs more datapoints.


Yep, more data will help.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LostParticle*
> 
> @ir88ed, I've submitted my benchmark approx. two days ago (post #56). Why am I not added in the chart?
> 
> i7-4790K, 4c 8t, per core OC: x48, x49, x49, x50, cache x44
> 16 GB DDR3, 2400 MHz, 10-11-12-24, 1T
> Office 2016 Pro Plus 64 bit
> Win 10 Pro
> Benchmark time: 82:59 seconds


This score seems a little bit off. Based on those speeds I think you should be in the 95+ second zone.


----------



## huzzug

Are you guys running the file that I updated recently? My results seem to be way off if you guys are in fact running that file. I'll incorporate version numbers into it to better understand which file is running.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> This score seems a little bit off. Based on those speeds I think you should be in the 95+ second zone.


Maybe, but he does have the second highest core speed so far. Machine to machine variances could account for the additional couple of seconds.

I may have to push my 5930K to 5.0 when it gets cold out, and see if it can make it through a bench. Definitely can't make it through timespy at that speed. The CPU bit kills it everytime; curse those growing metal crystals!


----------



## mllrkllr88

I'm starting to wonder about Excel 2010 vs 2016 variance too. We need to test both versions and maybe make 2 lists of subs if the results show too much different.

Hopefully this weekend I can get setup with 7740x, I should be able to pass this bench at 5.6g or so. For me, core scaling is almost non-existent. It looks like CPU core speed and memory scaling (both timings and frequency) is most of it.

Oh and yea, I am running 32gb of system memory but i setup the OS to only use 2.4gb (posted earlier about why I am doing this).


----------



## LostParticle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> Is that bench with the latest file? Something seems amiss. It takes my system ~an hour to complete the bench. How are you able to finish it within that time?


Isn't it obvious, from the screenshot of my post #82, that I was benchmarking the DATA1000 file that you provided? I thought it was made clear from the context but also up there, where Excel displays the file name, it is clearly visible...


----------



## LostParticle

This morning I have run five (5) rounds of this benchmark again. I benchmarked the "benchmarked_randomized_data2" file, 62762 rows, 39722 KB on my file explorer. After each run I was rebooting my computer. On my last attempt I also left my computer idle for approx. five (5) minutes with the spreadsheet loaded in Excel 2016, before hitting benchmark.

i7-4790K, 4c 8t, per core OC: x48, x49, x49, x50, cache x44
16 GB DDR3, 2400 MHz, 10-11-12-24, 1T
Office 2016 Pro Plus 64 bit
Win 10 Pro

My results:

Round 1: 82.52 seconds


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!




Sorry, I forgot to switch CPU-Z tabs!











Round 2: 82.09 seconds


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Round 3: 82.28 seconds. In this one I have included HWiNFO64 which is loaded on Windows startup. You can get an idea about what's going on while the bench is running


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Round 4: 82.57 seconds. In this screenshot my version of Excel is clearly visible.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Round 5: 81.75 seconds (approx. 5 minutes idle, with the spreadsheet loaded, before benchmarking). My best time.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Remember: before each round I was rebooting my computer.

Perhaps the best way to prove I am legit would be a video. I do not own a video camera or a smartphone (because I do not like them), to record in video the entire process though.

Thank you.

PS: According to my personal opinion, my system is not running at its fully potential this period because I have not clean-installed Windows 10 Fall Creators Update, yet.


----------



## huzzug

Well my question wasn't because I doubted any of you but because I'm getting ~2500secs on the benchmark which is pretty significant. Mine is Excel 2010. Maybe my system is doing something weird. It's an sandy bridge (don't know the model because work) but it's running stock.

Edit: Seems I found something. Our IT had Office 32-bit installed on our systems. Seems that's what causing these variations. Well, anybody have a formal request to submit their corporate IT dept for upgrading the versions of Office to 64-bit ?


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> I made a few further changes to the workbook.
> 
> Data1000.zip 193k .zip file
> 
> 
> Also, you need not close the workbook to re-run the bench. It should provide consistent score.


Ok. With this one I just got 26.68 seconds on my FX8320... I thought it was a fluke, so, I closed and re-opened it, ran again, 28.04 seconds. I checked if multi-threading was enabled, it wasn't. I enabled it, then I got 52.15 & 46.68 seconds. Disabled multi-threading again, I get 29.96 seconds. What gives? CPU usage with MT disabled is ~30%, with it enabled it's ~50%.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LostParticle*
> 
> i7-4790K, 4c 8t, per core OC: x48, x49, x49, x50, cache x44
> 16 GB DDR3, 2400 MHz, 10-11-12-24, 1T
> Office 2016 Pro Plus 64 bit
> Win 10 Pro
> 
> Perhaps the best way to prove I am legit would be a video. I do not own a video camera or a smartphone (because I do not like them), to record in video the entire process though.
> 
> Thank you.


No need. It is clear to me that you are on the level.









Your system, despite being a 4700 series chip, is running very fast with one core at 5.0 and the cache running at 4.4. This is a very interesting observation, IMO.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LostParticle*
> 
> This morning I have run five (5) rounds of this benchmark again.


Nice testing man, looks good!

I don't think anyone doubted your scores were legitimate and genuinely produced. Its just that your scores are a little bit out of range from what we have seen (albeit very limited sample size). We have also seen scores out of range on the other end too, so its obvious there are quite a few user variables with this bench. Keep pushing it


----------



## LostParticle

Thank you, mllrkllr88 and ir88ed, it is always beneficial to get encouraged.









@ir88ed, if you consider it appropriate, update please my submission with my best timing, which is 81.75 seconds, as you can see in my post #93.

I don't know if it interests anyone of you, but I've run the same benchmark on my Linux installation. Similarly, I was rebooting before each benchmark run. I just raised my OC a bit to: x48 x49 x50 x50, cache x44, and RAM timings the same.

Here are my results...


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!









I would *love it* if someone would/could provide something similar for Microsoft Word and Access.

Thank you!


----------



## AlphaC

Tempted to walk into a computer store with a whole bunch of random systems with this file on a USB stick.

Would be bonkers to run it on every i7/i5/Ryzen system that has Excel installed. They'd probably kick me out though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> Well my question wasn't because I doubted any of you but because I'm getting ~2500secs on the benchmark which is pretty significant. Mine is Excel 2010. Maybe my system is doing something weird. It's an sandy bridge (don't know the model because work) but it's running stock.
> 
> Edit: Seems I found something. Our IT had Office 32-bit installed on our systems. Seems that's what causing these variations. Well, anybody have a formal request to submit their corporate IT dept for upgrading the versions of Office to 64-bit ?


Most people are running 32 bit because that is what is installed by default. Having a 64-bit Office breaks compatibility with some older plug-ins and whatnot.

----

DATA1000: I'm getting 15 seconds on i5-2500k @ 4.6GHz , second run after closing Excel and reopening = 13.89


Office 2016 full version number Stable release‎: ‎1710 (16.0.8625.2121)

Ryzen 7 system still takes about 200 seconds for the original benchmark and a bit under 20 seconds for the DATA1000


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LostParticle*
> 
> Thank you, mllrkllr88 and ir88ed, it is always beneficial to get encouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @ir88ed, if you consider it appropriate, update please my submission with my best timing, which is 81.75 seconds, as you can see in my post #93.
> 
> I don't know if it interests anyone of you, but I've run the same benchmark on my Linux installation. Similarly, I was rebooting before each benchmark run. I just raised my OC a bit to: x48 x49 x50 x50, cache x44, and RAM timings the same.
> 
> Here are my results...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would *love it* if someone would/could provide something similar for Microsoft Word and Access.
> 
> Thank you!


Updated


----------



## burksdb

CPU: Ryzen R7 1700
#CPU cores: 8c/16th
CPU clock speed: 3.8GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
Excel ver: 2016 version 1710 Build 8625.2132 Click-to-Run
Time to sort (in seconds) Bench2: 113.05
Time to sort (in seconds) Data 1,000: 12.81

Bench2


Data 1000


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burksdb*
> 
> CPU: Ryzen R7 1700
> #CPU cores: 8c/16th
> CPU clock speed: 3.8GHz
> Total system memory: 16GB
> Excel ver: 2016 version 1710 Build 8625.2132 Click-to-Run
> Time to sort (in seconds) Bench2: 113.05
> Time to sort (in seconds) Data 1,000: 12.81
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Bench2
> 
> 
> Data 1000
> 
> [\spoiler]


Added. Thanks for helping out durksdb!


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Tempted to walk into a computer store with a whole bunch of random systems with this file on a USB stick.
> 
> Would be bonkers to run it on every i7/i5/Ryzen system that has Excel installed. They'd probably kick me out though.


I would love to do this, but at least at my local Microcenter Excel isn't installed on the demo PC's.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: i7 8700k
> #CPU cores: 6c/12t
> CPU clock speed: 5000 / 4500 Cache
> Total system memory: 16GB
> RAM Speed: DDR4-4000-17-17-17-2T
> Excel ver: 2016 Pro
> Time to sort (in seconds): 95.42 seconds
> 
> Cheers!


Missed this somehow. Added. Thanks japau! Nice ram speed!
Are you using 32 or 64bit Excel?


----------



## japau

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Missed this somehow. Added. Thanks japau! Nice ram speed!
> Are you using 32 or 64bit Excel?


64-bit.


----------



## LostParticle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Are you using 32 or 64bit Excel?


I used 64 bit, as well.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japau*
> 
> 64-bit.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LostParticle*
> 
> I used 64 bit, as well.


Alright, updated. Thanks!


----------



## AlphaC

32 bit is supposedly 10% slower (64 bit = 9% faster)
German setting 400% longer time to calculate due to decimal separator
Quote:


> The regional settings seem to have a big impact on the performance of Excel.
> 
> The German numeric system uses commas as decimal character and points as thousands separator. Therefore Excel formulas don't use commas for separating arguments but rather semicolon. A VLOOKUP in Excel with German regional settings looks like this:
> =VLOOKUP(A2;B:C;2;FALSE)
> 
> We compared the region "German (Germany)" with "English (USA)". Surprisingly, these settings seem to have a major impact on the calculation performance of Excel.
> 
> As the difference is so huge (+400 - +500% of calculation duration), we repeated this test under the three environments of the ThinkPad, Windows on a MacBook under Bootcamp as well as Excel for macOS.


More surprisingly, the difference seems to come up only under Windows.
http://professor-excel.com/performance-excel-study/#The_method_for_measuring_the_Excel_performance

see also https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/msoffice_excel-mso_win10/how-to-utilize-multiple-cores-in-excel-2016/76fef7bb-750d-42f7-95ca-91d2694479c1?auth=1

suggests switching on manual recalculation might be an option to cut down time

Broadwell

My new datapoint with a fresh Excel 2016 install (Version 1711) on a Windows 8.1 ultrabook with i5-5200u (15W TDP)
i5-5200u *locked CPU* (2.2GHz base clock, supposedly 2.7GHz max)
--- ~2400MHz uncore per hwinfo
--- VID ~ 1.095V
--- 2 cores+ HT = 4 threads
--- High performance power setting (min processor state 50%, max 100%), plugged in
Win 8.1 64 bit
Excel 2016 64 bit _fresh install_
1x8GB DDR3L 1600MHz SODIMM: 11-11-11-28 , 208 trfc , 1T command rate
Crucial MX300 750GB
(Huzzug benchmark) Result: 232.6 seconds


messing with min processor state 100% and checking multi-threading resulted in 262.66 seconds


Data1000 : 32.35 seconds

subsequent run had 37 seconds or so

running DATA1000 with min processor state 100% = 31.75 seconds
running DATA1000 with min processor state another time with 4 threads = 44.92 seconds


Turbo is highly variable so using 1 core actually yields better results
----

Exceltrader bench with multithread enabled , 100% min proc state:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






with 1 thread only,


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Haswell OEM boxes

*i3-4170* (3.7GHz) 2c/4t , 1x4GB (single channel) DDR3 1600 CL11 , WD Blue 500GB HDD 7200RPM 16MB buffer , Windows 10 , Excel 2016 32bit = 262.93 seconds (Huzzug benchmark) --- all default settings on install , high performance power plan
---> 255.49 seconds with 64 bit
---> DATA1000 : 33.42 seconds (64 bit Excel)

*i5-4460* (3.2GHz base clock, 3.4GHz turbo) 4c/4t , 2x4GB DDR3 1600 CL11 (each stick is 8JTF51264AZ-1G6E1 from Micron), Win 8.1 , Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TB HDD, Excel 2016 64 bit = 131.48 seconds --- all default settings under 64 bit installer, high performance power plan


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






---> DATA1000 = 21.8 seconds , subsequent run 21.98 seconds


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







(This suggests if it scaled perfectly, huzzug's benchmark is around 97 seconds for Haswell @ 4.6GHz in Excel 64 bit as long as your memory is in dual channel mode)

Sandy Bridge retest on 64-bit


Spoiler: [email protected] 4.6GHz (same setup as last time)



#Cores: 4 (4 threads)
CPU clock speed: 4.6GHz
Total system memory: 2x4GB DDR3
memory speed: 1600MHz CL9 (9-9-9-24)
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64 bit
Windows 7 Pro SP1 64 bit


_Excel 2016 64-bit instead of 32-bit_
huzzug's benchmark = 119.36 seconds , second run (redownloaded) = 118.92 seconds



DATA1000 = 17.84 seconds ; second time = 14.56 seconds ; third time = 14.76 seconds


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








For locked CPU's like the Pook's i5-6400 you ought to put the default turbo frequency. It's 3.3GHz per Intel : https://ark.intel.com/products/88185/Intel-Core-i5-6400-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz


----------



## Happy Hepo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> 32 bit is supposedly 10% slower (64 bit = 9% faster)
> German setting 400% longer time to calculate due to decimal separator
> More surprisingly, the difference seems to come up only under Windows.
> http://professor-excel.com/performance-excel-study/#The_method_for_measuring_the_Excel_performance
> 
> see also https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/msoffice_excel-mso_win10/how-to-utilize-multiple-cores-in-excel-2016/76fef7bb-750d-42f7-95ca-91d2694479c1?auth=1
> 
> suggests switching on manual recalculation might be an option to cut down time


Can't confirm the German performance disadvantage, my Excel and my windows use locale German, and my result lines up pretty good


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Happy Hepo*
> 
> Can't confirm the German performance disadvantage, my Excel and my windows use locale German, and my result lines up pretty good


That site tested with VLOOKUP formulas so it may have slightly different effects.


----------



## johako

Pretty nice evaluation









CPU: 3770K
#Cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 4.5 Ghz
Total system memory: 24 GB
Memory speed: DDR3-2200-10-12-12-30
Excel version: 2010
32/64 bit: 32 bit
Time to sort (in seconds): 155.68 s

CPU load stayed almost stable at 20 % during the benchmark.


----------



## idahosurge

CPU: 7820X
#Cores: 8
CPU clock speed: 4.6GHz
Total system memory: 32GB
memory speed: 16-16-16-36-1T @ 3600MHz
Excel version: Office 2010
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 105.44


----------



## JLMS2010

I did this on 2 different systems. This is actually interesting to me as my wife works with extremely large excel files. I'm looking at building her a computer with this as the main focus.

CPU: i7-7820x
#Cores: 8
CPU clock speed: 5.0GHz
Total system memory: 32GB
memory speed: 3600MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 99.88 Seconds



CPU: i7-7820x
#Cores: 8
CPU clock speed: 3.6GHz (Stock)
Total system memory: 32GB
memory speed: 3600MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 122.79 Seconds



CPU: i3-8100
#Cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 3.6GHz
Total system memory: 8GB
memory speed: 3200MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 140.9 seconds


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> 32 bit is supposedly 10% slower (64 bit = 9% faster)
> German setting 400% longer time to calculate due to decimal separator
> More surprisingly, the difference seems to come up only under Windows...


Wow, I haven't checked back in a while. Nice job AlphaC! I really like the i5-2500k 32 v. 64 bit runs. This really dispells any doubt that 64bit is much faster at this task.
Updated. Should have everyone else's added soon.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *johako*
> 
> Pretty nice evaluation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: 3770K
> #Cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 4.5 Ghz
> Total system memory: 24 GB
> Memory speed: DDR3-2200-10-12-12-30
> Excel version: 2010
> 32/64 bit: 32 bit
> Time to sort (in seconds): 155.68 s
> 
> CPU load stayed almost stable at 20 % during the benchmark.


Updated. Nice OC on the 3770K.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *idahosurge*
> 
> CPU: 7820X
> #Cores: 8
> CPU clock speed: 4.6GHz
> Total system memory: 32GB
> memory speed: 16-16-16-36-1T @ 3600MHz
> Excel version: Office 2010
> 32/64 bit: 64
> time to sort (in seconds): 105.44


Updated. Another nice OC. What core voltage do you run?


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> I did this on 2 different systems. This is actually interesting to me as my wife works with extremely large excel files. I'm looking at building her a computer with this as the main focus.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: i7-7820x
> #Cores: 8
> CPU clock speed: 5.0GHz
> Total system memory: 32GB
> memory speed: 3600MHz
> Excel version: 2016
> 32/64 bit: 64
> time to sort (in seconds): 99.88 Seconds
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: i7-7820x
> #Cores: 8
> CPU clock speed: 3.6GHz (Stock)
> Total system memory: 32GB
> memory speed: 3600MHz
> Excel version: 2016
> 32/64 bit: 64
> time to sort (in seconds): 122.79 Seconds
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: i3-8100
> #Cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 3.6GHz
> Total system memory: 8GB
> memory speed: 3200MHz
> Excel version: 2016
> 32/64 bit: 64
> time to sort (in seconds): 140.9 seconds


Updated. Blistering OC on the 7820X! I am more than a little surprised that you didn't beat out my [email protected] I will run again to verify that I didn't generate an outlier.
Builds focusing on Excel was why I started this benchmark (which huzzug promptly fixed and made useful!). I was torn between processor speed (intel) and core count (Ryzen), but knew Excel was going to be the primary task, especially large sorts and filtering. A huge thanks to everyone who has helped out so far!


----------



## mllrkllr88

Has anyone done a comparison of the Excel version on the same system? I have 2010 but I want to know if there is an advantage to 2016?

I am getting LN2 this weekend and I hope to squeeze in a quick run of this. Its just for fun, lets see how fast she can sort with 7740x @ 7ghz


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> Has anyone done a comparison of the Excel version on the same system? I have 2010 but I want to know if there is an advantage to 2016?
> 
> I am getting LN2 this weekend and I hope to squeeze in a quick run of this. Its just for fun, lets see how fast she can sort with 7740x @ 7ghz


Probably the best comparison is JLMS10 ([email protected], 2016/64bit, 99.88sec, currently #9) vs idahosurge ([email protected], 2010/64bit, 105.44sec, currently #12). About 5 sec separates the two, and the majority of that is probably due to the processor speed differences.
I can't wait to see a 7ghz run, no matter where on the list it lands you!


----------



## JLMS2010

Yeah. Obviously this doesn't take full advantage of all cores at their respective speeds.

The results don't really make much sense to me...lol


----------



## idahosurge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Updated. Another nice OC. What core voltage do you run?


1.135


----------



## JLMS2010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Updated. Blistering OC on the 7820X! I am more than a little surprised that you didn't beat out my [email protected] I will run again to verify that I didn't generate an outlier.
> Builds focusing on Excel was why I started this benchmark (which huzzug promptly fixed and made useful!). I was torn between processor speed (intel) and core count (Ryzen), but knew Excel was going to be the primary task, especially large sorts and filtering. A huge thanks to everyone who has helped out so far!


Here we go...

CPU: i7-8720x
#Cores: 8
CPU clock speed: 4.8GHz
Total system memory: 32GB
memory speed: 3600MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 19.76 seconds


----------



## mllrkllr88

I did some testing tonight in perpetration for subzero this weekend. My efficiency is really off, I should be far above the pack with thees clocks. As we I have observed myself, clock speed is far more important than cores. I think the issue resides in the particular combination of software I have and or Excel settings. I would love to try the 2016 64bit edition, I think we would see a marked improvement in the score.

CPU: 7740x
#Cores: 4/8
CPU clock speed: 5500Mhz (1.38v Custom water)
Total system memory: 1.78GB
Memory speed: 4000 12-12-12
Excel version: 2010
32/64 bit: 32bit
Time to sort (in seconds): 80.9 Seconds


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> time to sort (in seconds): 19.76 seconds


Nice try







I have a feeling you didn't actually close and re-open the bench. If you run it once, then run it again, it doesn't actually sort it and the score is invalid.


----------



## JLMS2010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> Nice try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a feeling you didn't actually close and re-open the bench. If you run it once, then run it again, it doesn't actually sort it and the score is invalid.












You caught me!









I'd be interested to see what Cinebench R15 scores people are getting in relation to the excel benchmark. Something doesn't seem to add up with this benchmark...Maybe 2010 is much faster?


----------



## DR4G00N

Will do some more later with 4770K, 7350K & i3 6320.

CPU: R7 1700
#Cores: 8/16
CPU clock speed: 3800MHz
Total system memory: 16GB
memory speed: DDR4-3200
Excel version: 2010
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 121.11s



Edit:

CPU: i7 4770K
#Cores: 4/8
CPU clock speed: 4900MHz @ 1.325V
Total system memory: 4GB
memory speed: DDR3-2600 8-12-8-28 1T @ 1.9V
Excel version: 2010
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 87.85s



May retry this one with some Samsung HCH9 2800 10-13-13 @ 2.2V, seems to be a bit faster than the PSC for memory sensitive benches.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DR4G00N*
> 
> Will do some more later with 4770K, 7350K & i3 6320.
> 
> CPU: R7 1700
> #Cores: 8/16
> CPU clock speed: 3800MHz
> Total system memory: 16GB
> memory speed: DDR4-3200
> Excel version: 2010
> 32/64 bit: 64
> time to sort (in seconds): 121.11s
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> CPU: i7 4770K
> #Cores: 4/8
> CPU clock speed: 4900MHz @ 1.325V
> Total system memory: 4GB
> memory speed: DDR3-2600 8-12-8-28 1T @ 1.9V
> Excel version: 2010
> 32/64 bit: 64
> time to sort (in seconds): 87.85s
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May retry this one with some Samsung HCH9 2800 10-13-13 @ 2.2V, seems to be a bit faster than the PSC for memory sensitive benches.


Updated.


----------



## JLMS2010

Nice! I don't understand this benchmark. 4 cores, 8 threads at a slower clock speed than 8 cores, 16 threads and it's faster? Lol

Actually it could be excel 2010 vs 2016... I don't have Excel 2010 to try.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> Actually it could be excel 2010 vs 2016... I don't have Excel 2010 to try.


Agreed, there are problems! Cores do absolutely nothing for me with 2010 32bit. There are many factors that change the score. This is why it would be good to see one system run all 4 different combinations (2010 32/64, 2016 32/64) of software and see where the differences are. After that is done, then it comes down to settings of the software itself.

Direct speed improvement

CPU core speed
CPU cache speed
Memory Latency (tight vs loose 1st and 2nd timings)
Memory frequency
Real-time mode, Diagnostic mode, and other OS optimizations (all combined are very minimal, less than 0.5 seconds)

Negligible or no noticeable speed improvement

CPU core count
Memory amount seen by OS (32gb same as 2gb)
Hyperthreading
Windows version (I tested W10, W8.1, W7 all 64 bit with 32bit Excel)

Unknown speed improvement

Excel 32 bit vs 64 bit
Excel edition (2010, 2016, ...)
Excel settings


----------



## DR4G00N

At the very least 2010 is purely single threaded, I don't know about 2016.

Here's a run with excel locked to core 1 with affinity.

CPU: i3 7350K
#Cores: 2
CPU clock speed: 5500MHz @ 1.45V under chilled water
Total system memory: 2.33GB Usable
memory speed: DDR4-4086 12-11-11 @ 1.96V
Excel version: 2010
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 76.05s


----------



## mllrkllr88

@DR4G00N Nice work man!!! This is a really nice run, excellent mems!!

I just got a copy of 2016 and started testing. It looks like 2010 is about 1 second faster than 2016 (both 32 bit). However, I just loaded 64 bit and made a run...WOW...thats where the speed is. I will make a full report when I am done testing.


----------



## AlphaC

I don't think it's right to call Excel singlethreaded completely. Sorting is inherently singlethreaded though it is supposedly able to multi-thread sort. The way I see it, anything _sequential_ is singlethreaded or single-thread bound.

If you were calculating things in parallel for multiple cells it's a different story. See *Monte Carlo simulation* or *binomial option pricing* / Black Scholes.

Anything that's a "VBA user-defined function" is singlethreaded.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/bb687899.aspx

"Office 2016 Black Scholes model: This test takes a 70.1 MB Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and performs about 28,000 sets of calculations that represent many of the most commonly used calculations in Excel. The measure of this test is the amount of time it takes to refresh the sheet."


https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i7_8700k__core_i5_8400/5.htm

I suspect AVX2 may be partially active for some functions. This would explain i7-7700K being close to Ryzen 5 1600X.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Ok guys, after spending far too much time testing this and prepping different OS builds just for this I finally have some hard answers.

@AlphaC I think you are correct, with version 2016 64bit and multi-core option enabled I am seeing more core scaling, but its pretty minimal.

The big thing I discovered is that 64bit makes a huge difference in the score. This might be related to core count, but I am not sure. There is still no need to use large amounts of physical memory seen by OS, it does nothing. Next up is testing my 14/28 CPU with 2016 64bit, I think we will see some good results. I also noticed that 64 bit is more stressful than 32 bit, I needed quite a huge voltage increase to achieve the same clocks as 32 bit

*Here are the results:*
Version 2010 32bit with 7740x @ 5.5g = *80.9 seconds*
Version 2016 32bit with 7740x @ 5.5g = *81.7 seconds*
Version 2016 64bit with 7740x @ 5.5g = *53.6 seconds*

CPU: 7740x
#Cores: 4/8
CPU clock speed: 5500Mhz
Total system memory: 2GB ish
Memory speed: 4000 12-12-12
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 32bit
Time to sort (in seconds): 81.73 Seconds


CPU: 7740x
#Cores: 4/8
CPU clock speed: 5500Mhz
Total system memory: 2GB ish
Memory speed: 4000 12-12-12
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64bit
Time to sort (in seconds): 53.68 Seconds


----------



## AlphaC

mllrkllr88 , have you tried the Excel Trader benchmark? http://exceltrader.net/984/benchmark_et-xls-an-excel-benchmark-for-traders/

edit: also there's a paid application from fastexcel
https://fastexcel.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/timing-excel-formula-calculations/ aka http://www.decisionmodels.com/FastExcelV3Profiler.htm
Quote:


> If you think about what Excel has to do to calculate formulas you can break it down into a series of steps:
> Overhead Time
> 
> Work out which formulas need to be calculated, depending on what has changed since the last calculation and what is volatile.
> Separate the formulas into chains of interdependent formulas and allocate them to the available calculation threads.
> Process each formula in the calculation chains in turn
> 
> Calculation Time
> 
> Parse the formula into a sequence of executable sub-expressions and functions.
> Get the data needed by the sub-expressions and functions and pass the data to them.
> Evaluate the sequence of sub-expressions and functions and return the results to the next sub-expression.
> Return the result to the Excel value layer.
> 
> Screen Repaint Time
> 
> If the cell containing the formula is in the visible part of the screen then Excel will format the result using the formatting and conditional formatting rules for that cell. *This can be slow!*


Quote:


> Multi-threaded or Single-threaded calculation
> 
> Given that most modern PCs have multiple cores Excel's calculation time is heavily dependent on making good use of the available cores.
> Some functions (INDIRECT, GETPIVOTDATA and most UDFs) are single-threaded.
> 
> Don't use a single-threaded calculation method such as Range.Calculate to compare a single-threaded function to a multi-threaded function.


Version variance



https://fastexcel.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/excel-versions-screen-test-how-fast-is-screen-updating/

OS variance:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1042-windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7/page3.html

edit: found the reason for faster sorts on 2nd sort
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *http://www.decisionmodels.com/calcsecretsc.htm*
> The first time that Excel calculates a workbook on a computer that has multiple processors, you incur some overhead while Excel examines dependencies. Therefore, you can see the maximum performance increase on the second and subsequent calculations (although there is still usually improvement on the first calculation versus running the same task on the same speed of computer with a single processor).


@ ir88ed , you might want to test the trial version of the program and then if you feel it's worthwhile maybe expense it to your company. < $200 for optimized excel sheet for everyday use seems worthwhile , you'd pay it off in manhours billed to the company.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> mllrkllr88 , have you tried the Excel Trader benchmark? http://exceltrader.net/984/benchmark_et-xls-an-excel-benchmark-for-traders/


Oh no, I see a black hole of time wasted in my future







In all seriousness, it looks pretty cool! Thanks, I will check it out


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> Ok guys, after spending far too much time testing this and prepping different OS builds just for this I am finally have some hard answers.
> 
> @AlphaC I think you are correct, with version 2016 64bit and multi-core option enabled I am seeing more core scaling, but its pretty minimal.
> 
> The big thing I discovered is that 64bit makes a huge difference in the score. This might be related to core count, but I am not sure. There is still no need to use large amounts of physical memory seen by OS, it does nothing. Next up is testing my 14/28 CPU with 2016 64bit, I think we will see some good results. I also noticed that 64 bit is more stressful than 32 bit, I needed quite a huge voltage increase to achieve the same clocks as 32 bit
> 
> *Here are the results:*
> Version 2010 32bit with 7740x @ 5.5g = *80.9 seconds*
> Version 2016 32bit with 7740x @ 5.5g = *81.7 seconds*
> Version 2016 64bit with 7740x @ 5.5g = *53.6 seconds*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: 7740x
> #Cores: 4/8
> CPU clock speed: 5500Mhz
> Total system memory: 2GB ish
> Memory speed: 4000 12-12-12
> Excel version: 2016
> 32/64 bit: 32bit
> Time to sort (in seconds): 81.73 Seconds
> 
> 
> CPU: 7740x
> #Cores: 4/8
> CPU clock speed: 5500Mhz
> Total system memory: 2GB ish
> Memory speed: 4000 12-12-12
> Excel version: 2016
> 32/64 bit: 64bit
> Time to sort (in seconds): 53.68 Seconds


Updated.
A new king is crowned! Beautiful work mllrkllr88! I think the data are really showing that 64bit and core speed are the key components to a fast Excel workstation. Think I can justify LN2 for my workstation?


----------



## spinFX

Lol here's a funny one:

CPU: i5-650
#Cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 3.2Ghz
Total system memory: 8GB
memory speed: 1333
Excel version: 2010 | 14.0.7177.50000 (32-bit)
32/64 bit: 32
time to sort (in seconds): *524.46*


----------



## JLMS2010

Ok. In excel 2016 I only ran it with 1 core then again with all 8 cores. The amount of cores do nothing.
1 Core 102.61 seconds



8 cores 102.40 seconds.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> mllrkllr88 , have you tried the Excel Trader benchmark? http://exceltrader.net/984/benchmark_et-xls-an-excel-benchmark-for-traders


I ran this benchmark. This actually makes a huge difference if you only run 1 core as opposed to all cores.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spinFX*
> 
> Lol here's a funny one:
> 
> CPU: i5-650
> #Cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 3.2Ghz
> Total system memory: 8GB
> memory speed: 1333
> Excel version: 2010 | 14.0.7177.50000 (32-bit)
> 32/64 bit: 32
> time to sort (in seconds): *524.46*


Awesome! Updated. It is really great to have points at the ends of the curve so this is perfect. My mom wants her computer back, though.


----------



## ir88ed

Here is a graph of the current i7 processors (n=18) running 64bit excel.

https://i.imgur.com/o2Ppbf0.jpg


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Think I can justify LN2 for my workstation?










Good luck convincing your employer that $40/hour run time and 99% reduced life expectancy is worth the arguably marginal gain.


----------



## mllrkllr88

Ok guys, I am finally done testing with LN2. I had a bad session with 7740x and never got around to testing this. However, I just did a quick session with 7700k and I had extra time at the end so I was able to fit this in. I had a memory pot on there from the previous bench so I couldn't remove it to do this. Huge thanks to @Jpmboy for letting me torture his super golden CPU









The results are not completely unexpected. What we see happening is that core speed percent speed increase drops off to almost nothing. At the lower frequencies, 3ghz-4ghz small changes dramatically increase the speed, but once we get up in the 5ghz range the scaling drops off.



CPU: 7700k
#Cores: 4/8
CPU clock speed: 6900Mhz
Total system memory: 2GB ish
Memory speed: 4000 12-12-12
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64bit
Time to sort (in seconds): 45.04 Seconds



Some tasty rig pics:





Spoiler: Warning: All the Screen Shots


----------



## Jpmboy

Eh, I only have Excel on my 4960X and 6950X rigs... 8700K and 7980XE are crippled with Open Office at this point. And it does not want to open with openoffice.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> Ok guys, I am finally done testing with LN2. I had a bad session with 7740x and never got around to testing this. However, I just did a quick session with 7700k and I had extra time at the end so I was able to fit this in. I had a memory pot on there from the previous bench so I couldn't remove it to do this. Huge thanks to @Jpmboy for letting me torture his super golden CPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> The results are not completely unexpected. What we see happening is that core speed percent speed increase drops off to almost nothing. At the lower frequencies, 3ghz-4ghz small changes dramatically increase the speed, but once we get up in the 5ghz range the scaling drops off.
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: 7700k
> #Cores: 4/8
> CPU clock speed: 6900Mhz
> Total system memory: 2GB ish
> Memory speed: 4000 12-12-12
> Excel version: 2016
> 32/64 bit: 64bit
> Time to sort (in seconds): 45.04 Seconds
> 
> 
> 
> Some tasty rig pics:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: All the Screen Shots


Updated. 1st though 8th place goes to mllrkllr88!
Amazing work!
I thought my 7700K workstation was pretty quick with it's H115i corsair AIO @ 4.7Ghz.

Having never done LN2 OC, how do you know when to stop? It looks like your core volts are 1.824 for the last few runs. Is that all that the bios allows, or is 1.824 known to be a redline that would likely cause damage if crossed?


----------



## huzzug

Are these benches after the Meltdown & Spectre patches ? Does excel get affected by those patches ? Any one with older intel platform, who can confirm the performance impact of the patch and can give a before and after ?


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Having never done LN2 OC, how do you know when to stop? It looks like your core volts are 1.824 for the last few runs. Is that all that the bios allows, or is 1.824 known to be a redline that would likely cause damage if crossed?


Complicated question to answer. Each chip is different and to learn the chip most people use Cine R15. There are many ways to do this, but what I did was start with 1.8v and run R15 incriminating the CPU clock/cache speed until you crash. Then go back and set the "crashed" speed but this time try increasing the voltage up from 1.8 to see if you are able to pass the previous failed clock speeed. There is a point at which adding voltage does not help the CPU pass more mhz, which is typically about 1.82-1.84v for KBL/SKL. The "redline" or instant death voltage is known to be beyond 1.90v.

I spent some time previously to learn this chip. I found the 4/8 voltage scaling limit to be 1.825v...which is right inline with others. I have attempted Cine R15 with 1.86v on this chip but there was no gain in mhz beyond 1.825v. So basically for this game I set 1.825v and increased the clock by 100mhz until it failed. I was able to set 7000mhz and run about 10 seconds of the Excel bench before crash.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> Complicated question to answer. Each chip is different and to learn the chip most people use Cine R15. There are many ways to do this, but what I did was start with 1.8v and run R15 incriminating the CPU clock/cache speed until you crash. Then go back and set the "crashed" speed but this time try increasing the voltage up from 1.8 to see if you are able to pass the previous failed clock speeed. There is a point at which adding voltage does not help the CPU pass more mhz, which is typically about 1.82-1.84v for KBL/SKL. The "redline" or instant death voltage is known to be beyond 1.90v.
> 
> I spent some time previously to learn this chip. I found the 4/8 voltage scaling limit to be 1.825v...which is right inline with others. I have attempted Cine R15 with 1.86v on this chip but there was no gain in mhz beyond 1.825v. So basically for this game I set 1.825v and increased the clock by 100mhz until it failed. I was able to set 7000mhz and run about 10 seconds of the Excel bench before crash.


That's awesome. Over 1.90v damages the chip or just gives a guaranteed crash?


----------



## Jpmboy

damn - should switch to free libre office!


----------



## mllrkllr88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> damn - should switch to free libre office!


Show us the magic







Was this done with your big boy chip?


----------



## Excession

This thread caught my eye while I was scrolling through the forum at work (don't judge me). So, without further ado, behold my awe-inspiring workstation:

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955
Cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 3.2 Ghz
Total system memory: 8 GB
memory speed: 1333 MHz
Excel version: 2010
32/64 bit: 32 bit
time to sort: 420.49 seconds


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Excession*
> 
> This thread caught my eye while I was scrolling through the forum at work (don't judge me). So, without further ado, behold my awe-inspiring workstation:
> 
> CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955
> Cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 3.2 Ghz
> Total system memory: 8 GB
> memory speed: 1333 MHz
> Excel version: 2010
> 32/64 bit: 32 bit
> time to sort: 420.49 seconds


You could overclock if you have a decent motherboard (especially Northbridge). Also try Excel 64 bit. I sliced my time to about 65% on my Sandy Bridge i5-2500K system.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *huzzug*
> 
> Are these benches after the Meltdown & Spectre patches ? Does excel get affected by those patches ? Any one with older intel platform, who can confirm the performance impact of the patch and can give a before and after ?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> damn - should switch to free libre office!


I noticed the same thing when I first started this. Office Libre ran very quickly for me. Then it crashed.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mllrkllr88*
> 
> Show us the magic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this done with your big boy chip?


no, i used the 8700K (5.2). Libre even loads way faster than MS or Open Office. Haven't had a crash or anything like that yet... even working with some very large ppt and word docs. beats the pants off open office.
This looks more like a proper run based on the cell colors:


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Excession*
> 
> This thread caught my eye while I was scrolling through the forum at work (don't judge me). So, without further ado, behold my awe-inspiring workstation:
> 
> CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955
> Cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 3.2 Ghz
> Total system memory: 8 GB
> memory speed: 1333 MHz
> Excel version: 2010
> 32/64 bit: 32 bit
> time to sort: 420.49 seconds


Updated.
AlphaC is correct, upgrading to 64bit makes a big difference, in this benchmark at least.


----------



## AlphaC

@jpmboy you probably need to rerun it with a new copy of the file.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> @jpmboy you probably need to rerun it with a new copy of the file.


that 30 sec run was from a new copy. No file is saved after. Dl Libre office and try the bench.
before:

After:

full 4K images
Looks identical to before and after when run with MS Office Excel 2016 and 2003 for the benchmark.

Free Libre office is off topic for sure, but not everyone has or wants the new office. (the best version is 2003 which I still use 5 copies on various rigs.)
No one is gonna pay for MS office to run this benchmark,


----------



## ir88ed

Jpmboy said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> @jpmboy you probably need to rerun it with a new copy of the file.
> 
> that 30 sec run was from a new copy. No file is saved after. Dl Libre office and try the bench.
> before:
> 
> After:
> 
> full 4K images
> Looks identical to before and after when run with MS Office Excel 2016 and 2003 for the benchmark.
> 
> 
> Free Libre office is off topic for sure, but not everyone has or wants the new office. (the best version is 2003 which I still use 5 copies on various rigs.)
> No one is gonna pay for MS office to run this benchmark,


Libre office seems like a viable alternative and would be my first choice if I was running a linux desktop. I got very similar time results when I ran this benchmark with Libre office on my machine. Libre office is just much faster at this task. I have no idea if it was making better use of the cores or just runs a more efficient sort. Jpmboy, do you see activity on more than one or two cores when you run this?


----------



## The Pook

Finally got my old BIOS back in my mobo! Had to buy a EEPROM on eBay and swap it in since Asus blocked back flashing, but no more 2.7Ghz! 

CPU: i5 6400 Skylake
#CPU cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 4.4GHz 
Total system memory: 16GB 
Excel ver: 2016
Time to sort (in seconds): 101.2 seconds


----------



## Jpmboy

ir88ed said:


> Libre office seems like a viable alternative and would be my first choice if I was running a linux desktop. I got very similar time results when I ran this benchmark with Libre office on my machine. Libre office is just much faster at this task. I have no idea if it was making better use of the cores or just runs a more efficient sort. * Jpmboy, do you see activity on more than one or two cores when you run this*?


I'm only seeing 1 to 2 cores spin up during the sort with Libre office (windows 10 version). It's just probably a more efficient sort.


----------



## AlphaC

I remain skeptical since the 30 seconds time seems the same time as what Excel gives _after it has already been sorted_.

Have you looked at the datavalues before and after sorting? Maybe the VBA timer isn't working properly in Libreoffice (i.e. timing from a different point in the sort) or perhaps it doesn't recalculate anything (more likely).


----------



## Jpmboy

AlphaC said:


> I remain skeptical since the 30 seconds time seems the same time as what Excel gives _after it has already been sorted_.
> 
> Have you looked at the *datavalues before and after sorting*? Maybe the VBA timer isn't working properly in Libreoffice (i.e. timing from a different point in the sort) or perhaps it doesn't recalculate anything (more likely).


already posted the answer to your question. scroll up. 

but, this is offtopic since this bench thread is excel based.
Enjoy
:thumb:


----------



## AlphaC

I got 46 seconds using Sandy Bridge @ 4.6 so it's in line with your result.

There's something else at play here.

Manually using the filter arrow (that looks like V) and "sort ascended" from first column is also 45 seconds or so.

I did notice a 2nd core was being used more than in Excel , with the 3rd and 4th cores also lightly loaded around 10-15%.

It's about a quarter of the time versus the 32 bit version of Excel 2016 (~180 seconds) and about 40% of the time versus the 64 bit version of Excel 2016 ( ~ 120 seconds).

---

LibreOffice Multithreading findings:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LibreOffice-Calc-Threading


> Tor Lillqvist and Dennis Francis of Collabora appear to be leading this charge. Their first stab at Calc parallelism notes that for now formula group calculations are done in parallel threads. This is done when OpenCL is not being used and the _CPU_THREADED_CALCULATION_ is set. For now it's hidden behind an environment variable, but hopefully soon enough it will become the default.


Collabora Libreoffice presentation on multithreading https://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2017-02-04.html

I suspect for ir88ed's workflow perhaps the use of Calc could be possible if it's a home computer.


----------



## JackCY

115.62s on 4.5Ghz 4690K 16GB RAM 2400 CL11 (stock RAM clocks right now and other stuff idling in background), Excel 32bit for compatibility reasons, 1 run nothing more.

CPU: 4690K
#Cores: 4
#Threads: 4
CPU clock speed: 4.5GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
memory speed: 2400MHz CL11
Excel version: 2016 32bit 16.0.4639.1000
32/64 bit: 32bit
time to sort (in seconds): 115.62s

LibreOffice is not compatible with Excel macros, who the hell knows it runs it should just crash or fail for anything even remotely complex. Using spreadsheets to process and sort large data is a bad idea to begin with.


----------



## Roxborough

CPU:i7-5600U
#Cores: 2 (4 logical)
CPU clock speed: 2.6GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
memory speed:1600mhz
Excel version: 1801 (Build 9001.2171 Click-to-Run)
32/64 bit: 64-bit
time to sort (in seconds): 223.33 seconds

This is my work laptop, I've not restarted it in months so this maybe a skewed result. Dell Lattitude E5550.


----------



## ir88ed

JackCY said:


> 115.62s on 4.5Ghz 4690K 16GB RAM 2400 CL11 (stock RAM clocks right now and other stuff idling in background), Excel 32bit for compatibility reasons, 1 run nothing more.
> Using spreadsheets to process and sort large data is a bad idea to begin with.


I am not sure I understand the aversion to using spreadsheets, and I have run into this with more than a few people. I will use R for complex calculation. I am not afraid to use scripting to deal with data formatting/merging/analysis. But if I download a large dataset and just want to drop labels on it, calculate ttests and fold changes across groups, and do some sorts, what the heck is wrong with excel? I could do it in R, but why? It would take longer and it is more difficult.


----------



## sdcanuck

Lenovo Thinkpad w550s
CPU: ACPI x64-based PC i7-5600 @ 2.60 GHz
#Cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 2.60 GHz
Total system memory: 12 GB
memory speed: 1600 MHz
Excel version: MS Excel 2016 (MSO (16.0.9029.2253) 64-bit
32/64 bit: 64 bit
time to sort (in seconds): 197.13 (1st test), 252.7 (2nd test)


----------



## Happy Hepo

New Rig:
CPU: TR 1920X
#Cores: 12 (24)
CPU clock speed: 3,7 GHz
Total system memory: 32 GB
memory speed: 3200 MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 32
time to sort (in seconds): 216,25

Laptop:
CPU: i7-4702MQ
#Cores: 4(8)
CPU clock speed: 3,1 GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
memory speed: 1600 MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 32
time to sort (in seconds): 155,02


----------



## AlphaC

Happy Hepo, unless you need the 32-bt version for add-ins you should probably try it on 64-bit Excel.


----------



## Happy Hepo

Rerun:
CPU: TR 1920X
#Cores: 12 (24)
CPU clock speed: 3,7 GHz
Total system memory: 32 GB
memory speed: 3200 MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 129,73


----------



## AlphaC

Stock R7 2700X on X370 board with XFR2 enabled (all core ~ 3.9GHz to 4.1GHz under full load and 4.35GHz XFR2 single and 2 core boost)
8 core 16 thread
RAM amount: 2x8GB
DDR4 3200 CL16 16-16-16-30

~180 seconds on 32-bit Excel 2016...








~170 seconds with PBO (Precision Boost overdrive) enabled








~14.5 to 15 seconds for DATA1000














also Excel trader (more parallel)








Excel trader with PBO enabled


----------



## ftln

Office 2019 64bit 43.3 Seconds



Intel Core i7 8086K @ 5.00GHz Delidded - Asus ROG Z370 Strix - G.SKill Aegis [email protected] 2x16GB - NZXT - PM961 1TB x 2 RAID0 - MANTA BLACK/RED - Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair H110 Pro - Asus ROG Swift PG279Q 2560x1440P G-Sync 165Hz


----------



## ir88ed

OK, its been a while and there has been some activity on this board so I have updated the master spreadsheet. 
@HappyHeppo, nice increase with the 32 to 64 bit change. @ftln, I am super happy to see this. I won one of the 8086K chips in the intel giveaway and am upgrading my 5930k. Blazing time! What tool did you use for your delid? I am running a custom loop and I plan to delid immediately. What voltage did it take to get 5ghz?
@ every one else, nice work!!


----------



## ftln

ir88ed said:


> OK, its been a while and there has been some activity on this board so I have updated the master spreadsheet.
> 
> @HappyHeppo, nice increase with the 32 to 64 bit change.
> @ftln, I am super happy to see this. I won one of the 8086K chips in the intel giveaway and am upgrading my 5930k. Blazing time! What tool did you use for your delid? I am running a custom loop and I plan to delid immediately. What voltage did it take to get 5ghz?
> @ every one else, nice work!!


Just a plain old razor-blade, really easy to do if you have steady hands, volts for 5ghz are 1.2v avx stable :


----------



## ir88ed

ftln said:


> Just a plain old razor-blade, really easy to do if you have steady hands, volts for 5ghz are 1.2v avx stable :


[email protected] is pretty amazing IMO. Did you attach your waterblock directly to the naked CPU die, or is there some kind of copper spacer that you need to put in between?


----------



## Skynets

*Yeah!*

Laptop MacBook Pro mid 2018:

CPU:i9-8950HK
#Cores: 6(12)
CPU clock speed: 2,9 GHz
Total system memory: 32GB
memory speed: 2400 MHz
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64
time to sort (in seconds): 42.07


----------



## h2o ANALyst

*Benchmark*

Tested on the best computer in my office

200.53 Seconds

CPU: Xeon E5-1620 v3 @ 3.50GHz (4 cores, 8 threads)
RAM: 16gb 2133MHz, slots 4 of 8
Gpu: Quadro K2200


----------



## NoGuru

CPU: i7 8086K
#Cores: 6
CPU clock speed: 5.2
Total system memory: 16 GB
memory speed: 1600 16-18-18-38
Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 32
time to sort (in seconds): 91.27


----------



## AlphaC

ftln said:


> Office 2019 64bit 43.3 Seconds
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i7 8086K @ 5.00GHz Delidded - Asus ROG Z370 Strix - G.SKill Aegis [email protected] 2x16GB - NZXT - PM961 1TB x 2 RAID0 - MANTA BLACK/RED - Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair H110 Pro - Asus ROG Swift PG279Q 2560x1440P G-Sync 165Hz


 Is there some crazy improvement in 2019 or did you manage some sort of optimization

also I tried today again on 2016 with R7 2700X on 32 bit (Windows 7 so timer has to be right) and somehow I obtained 135 seconds without overclocks








It doesn't respond to core count at all, I tried using downcore control to turn my R7 2700X to a 4+0 (eliminate cross-CCX latency) and all that did was make the time within 1 second. Dropping to 3+3 (emulating a R7 2600X more or less) yielding ~ 134 seconds (133.93). Disabling SMT resulted in a similar score.

Also tried on the i5-2500K system that has 64 bit Excel and it seems to have the same improvement in times even with Spectre/Meltdown Windows patches. Maybe Windows 7 updates have changed something because I didn't do anything on either system. I find it odd that an old i5 would be able to match a i7-4770K clocked higher.


----------



## mllrkllr88

ftln said:


> Office 2019 64bit 43.3 Seconds


WOW, good work!!! Office 2019 is finally utilizing cores or what? If 5G 6-core beating 6.9g 4-core, I wonder where the scaling stops. I have some high core chips but how do I get my hands on office 2019 now :thinking: :thinking:


----------



## ftln

Impossible to beat the 8086k score of 43s or even repeat it !
I'm now testing with my 9900k @5GHZ and can only get a 48.8:


----------



## The Pook

Excel 2016, x64: 9900K (stock), 16GB DDR4 4133 18-18-18-37 2T = *90.69*


----------



## Gotcha85

Working on my master thesis with huge excel sheets and was looking to optimate the performance of my hardware.
But it looks like that my old hardware works very well...

Using MS Office 2016 Professional Plus 2016 in 64bit version


----------



## 5291Crash

CPU: Ryzen 5 2600X
#Cores: 6/12
CPU clock speed: 4150 (while watching cpu doing the test, as it dose as it wants)
Total system memory: 16
memory speed: 3000
Excel version: 2019 (or newest office 365 trial provides.
32/64 bit: 64, in Win 10
time to sort (in seconds):70.11

But for some reason after looking at others results i will be locking the processor down to 4150 and retesting.


Second test preformed after closing out excel and relaunching from the file same as prior test. 

Second test was 70.77 Seconds,

MSI x470 Gaming Plus
Ryzen 2600X set to 4150 @1.375v
Teamgroup 2 x 8GB ram at 3000 16-18-18-38
WD Black 500GB NVMe drive for OS. 
MSI RX 570 8GB OC Armour


----------



## mllrkllr88

Anyone run 2019 Office with the 32 core 2990WX yet? I think the new office is supposed to be optimized for more cores, if I can get the time I will setup a test on the big boy AMD chip.


----------



## gt86

[email protected],4Ghz 
-W10 64bit 
-Excel 2016 

Benchmark = 84,68sec. 

Not the best result....


----------



## Chibyth

mllrkllr88 said:


> Anyone run 2019 Office with the 32 core 2990WX yet? I think the new office is supposed to be optimized for more cores, if I can get the time I will setup a test on the big boy AMD chip.


Well I've got office 365 and the benchmark result is 83.72 sec on my very old 2600k @ 4.4GHZ with 8Go ram.
I'm very surprised with the result... Didn't expected something like that.


----------



## md021383

i9 9900k @ 5.1Ghz
win10
excel 2016 

58.12


----------



## ScubaSaul

CPU: Ryzen 3 2200G
#Cores: 4/4
CPU clock speed: 3792
Total system memory: 16
memory speed: 3000
Excel version: 2019 
32/64 bit: 64, in Win 10
time to sort (in seconds):95.36


----------



## br0adband

New member (after all these years, geez), first post. Recently got a ThinkPad W540 maxed out for a great price and figured I'd spend some time doing some testing, so here's the result I got:

CPU: *Intel i7-4930mx (stock everything)*
#Cores: *4 cores 8 threads*
CPU clock speed: *3.0 GHz (3.9 GHz single core Turbo Boost peak, 3.7 GHz 4 core Turbo Boost peak)*
Total system memory: *32GB*
memory speed: *DDR3 1600 (timings: 11-11-11-28)*
Excel version: *Excel 2019*
32/64 bit: *64-bit*
time to sort (in seconds): *78.32 seconds*


----------



## ftln

16 Threads maxed out in Libre Office Ubuntu : 16 Seconds with 9900k @ 5.2ghz


----------



## mouacyk

16 Threads in LibreCalc on Gentoo: 14 seconds with 9900K @ 5.0GHz and RAM at 4000MHz C16-1T


----------



## AlphaC

I think there's been some update to Excel. I tested on my i5 system that hasn't had any BIOS/firmware updates or anything and it has 86seconds as a result on Excel 2016 x64.


On Ryzen I'd expect changes due to firmware updates and such but not on an i5.


86s vs 119 (64 bit) / 183s (32 bit) without OS change or BIOs change seems odd.


also Libreoffice R7 1700X @3.9GHz 2x8GB 3466C14 memory overclock, Linux kernel 5.0 backport to Ubuntu 18.04LTS = 22-23s


> Libreoffice version: 6.0.7.3 Build ID: 1:6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.6 CPU threads: 16; OS: Linux 5.0


that's about 38-44% more time than the [email protected] posted on prior page


----------



## chrysanth25

*tx*

tx not only this helps benching it also helped improve my excel skills
learned a ton the colours for academic medicinedoctoral use

cant wait to try it 9 3950x soon


----------



## GuaPat

*Dr. Jorge Rabinovich*

CPU:
#Cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 3.7 Ghz
Total system memory: 8Gb
memory speed:
Excel version: Microsoft Home & Student 2016
32/64 bit: 64 bit
time to sort (in seconds): 80.2

CPU:
#Cores: 10
CPU clock speed: 3.5 Ghz
Total system memory: 64Gb
memory speed:
Excel version: Microsoft Home & Student 2016
32/64 bit: 64 bit
time to sort (in seconds): 41.4


----------



## shaoxuan

Hi all,

I don't know if this is correct.

CPU: 3800X Zen 2
Clock speed: 3.9 GHZ, 4.475 GHZ Boost
Memory: 2x8GB CL14
Excel: 64 bit
Time: 47.39 secs


----------



## AlphaC

@ GuaPat, you didn't list CPU used. The clockspeed on a CPU cannot be taken independent of its architecture.





shaoxuan said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I don't know if this is correct.
> 
> CPU: 3800X Zen 2
> Clock speed: 3.9 GHZ, 4.475 GHZ Boost
> Memory: 2x8GB CL14
> Excel: 64 bit
> Time: 47.39 secs


 It could be correct.
Which Windows version are you using to test and Excel version?


The Excel 2019 version might have additional multi-threading enhancements vs 2016.


Also you listed CL14, I'm assuming that is 3200C14 with XMP timngs?


----------



## shaoxuan

I am a forum noob here, so I'm not exactly sure how to reply your posts.

I amended my replies below.

CPU: 3800X Zen 2 / 9900K
Clock speed stock: 3.9 GHZ, 4.475 GHZ Boost / 3.6 GHz, 4.7 GHz Turbo 
Memory: 2x8GB CL14 3200MHz / 2x8GB CL19 3600MHz
Office 365, Excel, Version 1902: 64 bit (same)
Time: 47.39 secs / 50.79 secs

I also tested a 2700X with the same Mobo, RAM and Excel Specs as the 3800X

What really baffles me, and I think there must've been an update to Excel is that:
1. 9900K tested on 4 May, 50.71 (I cant recall the Excel version)
2. 9900K tested on 30 July, 50.79 
3. 2700X tested on 29 Apr, 95+ (I cant recall the Excel version)
4. 3800X tested on 29 July, 47.39 

The gap between 2700X and 3800X is too large to be just a CPU upgrade.


----------



## AlphaC

The biggest difference is 3800X cache sizes and the AVX2 has doubled (instead of combining two AVX it has actual AVX2) on top of the ~15% IPC improvement.


----------



## shaoxuan

Noted thanks for the info, Im really happy that the excel performance improved. Heavy excel user here.


----------



## shaoxuan

*Zen 2 Benchmark*

Below could be slightly off topic:

Contrary to (1) advice from the community, (2) rational decision making and (3) common sense, I upgraded my motherboard from a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi to a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master.

Multiple runs of the Excel Benchmark now places me at 50.6 to 50.8 seconds.

For comparison purposes, and further to my earlier posts:

1. 3800X tested on July 29, 47.39s (and was usually within this range) - using a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi
2. 3800X tested on 3 Sep, 50.6s - using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master

All other hardware remain the same.

Did a fresh reinstall of Windows to Benchmark.


----------



## 1TM1

Six more data points from two PCs:
ran the case, found that excel was 2016.32 despite both windows and license being 64bit. reinstalled office to 64bit, ran again, downloaded 1909 excel update with an interesting message from MS and reran.

ran on an ultra-low-voltage intel laptop with office2019-64bit. 
also checked the effects of memory speed, and tried to level the field (board only goes as low as 2.7GHz).

Ryzen1700-3.9GHz-8core-16thread-16GB-DDR4-3200-Excel2016-32bit-179sec - ran only 1 thread
Ryzen1700-3.9GHz-8core-16thread-16GB-DDR4-3200-Excel2016-64bit-87sec - ran only 1 thread
Ryzen1700-3.9GHz-8core-16thread-16GB-DDR4-3200-Excel2016-1909-64bit-68sec - ran only 1 thread
intel i5-3439Y-2.0GHz-2core-4thread-4GB-DDR3-1600-Excel2019-1908-64bit-202sec - ran on 2! threads
Ryzen1700-3.9GHz-8core-16thread-16GB-DDR4-2133-Excel2016-1909-64bit-76sec - ran only 1 thread
Ryzen1700-2.7GHz-8core-16thread-16GB-DDR4-1600-Excel2016-1909-64bit-90sec - ran only 1 thread

Multithreaded and EnableMultithreaded boxes checked in Options-Advanced


----------



## ftln

Stock 3950x


----------



## tact220

ftln said:


> Stock 3950x


May i know which version/build of excel are u using? and ram? thxthx

------------
Update: From the previous posts I guess u are using excel 2019 64 bits, may i ask whether u can try the same test using 3950x but using single thread? I am very curious on how 3950x perform in spreadsheet that has a highly sequential calculation chain which has no benefit in using multi core..........appreciate that!

And do u think the performance will go sub 40s if PBO is enabled?

-------
For my stone age PC (Q9450) + Excel 2016 64 bits
If multi core/threading is on: 287s
If multi core/threading is off: 272s

Weird.


----------



## OrangeBoy

*i7-8650U on Office 365*

CPU: i7-8650U
#CPU cores: 4
CPU clock speed: 1.9GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
Excel ver: Office 365
Time to sort (in seconds): 72.2 seconds


----------



## Keosoft

Hi, my speed:

----
CPU: Ryzen 5 2400G
#Cores: 4 (8 threads)
CPU clock speed: 3.13 GHz
Total system memory: 16 MB
memory speed: 2934 MHz (according to AIDA64 v5.70.3800)
Excel version: Excel for Office 365 (I think = 2016)
32/64 bit: 32 bit
time to sort (in seconds): 237
----

Note: I do not overclock. When running the bench, Excel drives all 8 threads to max. 33%


Keosoft


----------



## johako

johako said:


> CPU: 3770K
> #Cores: 4
> CPU clock speed: 4.5 Ghz
> Total system memory: 24 GB
> Memory speed: DDR3-2200-10-12-12-30
> Excel version: 2010
> 32/64 bit: 32 bit
> Time to sort (in seconds): 155.68 s
> 
> CPU load stayed almost stable at 20 % during the benchmark.


I tried it again. Same hardware system but updated office and 50% faster:

Excel version: 2016
32/64 bit: 64 bit
Time to sort (in seconds): 81.73 s


----------



## LicSqualo

Hello,
just to share my results:

CPU: Ryzen 7 1700
#Cores: 8 (16 threads)
CPU clock speed: 4.065 GHz
Total system memory: 16 MB
memory speed: 3500 MHz (14-13-13-13-22-36-252 1t)
Excel version: Excel for Office Professional Plus 2019
32/64 bit: 64 bit
time to sort (in seconds): 67.7


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Hmmm... kinda want to try this, but I use Libre office. Not rusre how usefull my numbers will be for you.


----------



## Melan

I ran it in libre office on Mid 2012 Macbook Air. Result was 62 seconds. Comparing it to the results in OP, I doubt very seriously that it is correct lmao.


----------



## shaoxuan

I updated my RAM on my Zen 2, see Entry 7

CPU: 3800X Zen 2 / 9900K
Clock speed stock: 3.9 GHZ, 4.475 GHZ Boost / 3.6 GHz, 4.7 GHz Turbo 
Memory: 2x8GB CL14 3200MHz / 2x8GB CL19 3600MHz
Office 365, Excel, Version 1902: 64 bit (same)
Time: 47.39 secs / 50.79 secs


What really baffles me, and I think there must've been an update to Excel is that:
1. 9900K tested on 4 May, 50.71 (I cant recall the Excel version)
2. 9900K tested on 30 July, 50.79 
3. 2700X tested on 29 Apr, 95+ (I cant recall the Excel version)
4. 3800X tested on 29 July, 47.39 
5. 3800X tested on July 29, 47.39s (and was usually within this range) - using a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi 
6. 3800X tested on 3 Sep, 50.6s - using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master (updated BIOS)
7. 3800X tested on 16 Jul, 44.83 - using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master (updated BIOS), 4x8GB CL16 RAM


----------



## 113802

CPU: 9900k
#Cores: 8
CPU clock speed: 5.2Ghz
Total system memory: 32GB
memory speed: 3200Mhz CL 15
LibreOffice Calc Version: 6.4.1.2
32/64 bit: 64 bit
time to sort (in seconds): 9


----------



## ir88ed

WannaBeOCer said:


> CPU: 9900k
> #Cores: 8
> CPU clock speed: 5.2Ghz
> Total system memory: 32GB
> memory speed: 3200Mhz CL 15
> LibreOffice Calc Version: 6.4.1.2
> 32/64 bit: 64 bit
> time to sort (in seconds): 9


officelibre calc has a much faster sort than windows excel, so it isn't a fair comparison of your CPU score with everyone elses. It is a fair criticism of Excel though, as it is obviously possible to implement a better sort function as OfficeLibre has done it.


----------



## ir88ed

I haven't been here in quite a while, it will be interesting to see what kind of numbers the new Ryzen 5000 series CPUs will put down.


----------



## ir88ed

Prophet4NO1 said:


> Hmmm... kinda want to try this, but I use Libre office. Not rusre how usefull my numbers will be for you.


OfficeLibre has a much faster sort than Windows excel. I think we would need a different benchmark for OfficeLibre.


----------



## 113802

ir88ed said:


> officelibre calc has a much faster sort than windows excel, so it isn't a fair comparison of your CPU score with everyone elses. It is a fair criticism of Excel though, as it is obviously possible to implement a better sort function as OfficeLibre has done it.


I added it to compare with others who ran Calc, check the previous page. The difference though is I'm running Solus Linux which uses similar Intel optimizations just like Intel's Clear Linux.


----------



## Arctucas

Please make the "Benchmark" button more noticeable.









9900K
8 cores/16 threads
5000MHz
32GB 
4000MHz
Excel 2010
64 bit
76.69 seconds


----------



## shaoxuan

shaoxuan said:


> I updated my RAM on my Zen 2, see Entry 7
> 
> CPU: 3800X Zen 2 / 9900K
> Clock speed stock: 3.9 GHZ, 4.475 GHZ Boost / 3.6 GHz, 4.7 GHz Turbo
> Memory: 2x8GB CL14 3200MHz / 2x8GB CL19 3600MHz
> Office 365, Excel, Version 1902: 64 bit (same)
> Time: 47.39 secs / 50.79 secs
> 
> 
> What really baffles me, and I think there must've been an update to Excel is that:
> 1. 9900K tested on 4 May, 50.71 (I cant recall the Excel version)
> 2. 9900K tested on 30 July, 50.79
> 3. 2700X tested on 29 Apr, 95+ (I cant recall the Excel version)
> 4. 3800X tested on 29 July, 47.39
> 5. 3800X tested on July 29, 47.39s (and was usually within this range) - using a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi
> 6. 3800X tested on 3 Sep, 50.6s - using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master (updated BIOS)
> 7. 3800X tested on 16 Jul, 44.83 - using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master (updated BIOS), 4x8GB CL16 RAM


8. 5900X tested on 28 Nov, 39.62 - using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master, 4x8GB CL14 3200MHZ


----------



## Mr. Pt

Test date: 12/7/2020
CPU: 5950X w/ B550
#Cores: 16
CPU clock speed: 4.65Ghz All Core OC @1.31V
Total system memory: 32GB
Memory speed: 3200Mhz CL16
Time to sort (in seconds): 29.59


----------



## thuman

Hey Gents

The file i have doesnt seem to have the benchmark button on?


----------



## Cleme_JJ

Just curious as to what my laptop was capable of on this test compared to built out PCs so I included it below. I haven't messed around with clock speeds or anything since I got the laptop last year. 

Test date: 3/15/2021
CPU: Ryzen 5 Mobile 4500 U- In HP Envy x360 Laptop
#Cores: 6 Cores/ 6 Threads
CPU clock speed: 3.94 Ghz
Total system memory: 16 Gb DDR4
Memory speed: 1596.8 MHz (DDR4-3194) - Ratio 1:16
Time to sort (in seconds):76.87 seconds


----------



## rodskogj

Interest topic. I'll add a few more benchmarks

Test date: 3/29/2021
Test Machine: Laptop (Lenovo X1 Yoga, 4th Gen (Late 2019))
CPU: Intel i7-8665U @ 1.9GHz
#Cores: 4 Cores/ 8 Threads
CPU clock speed: 4.8 Ghz (Turbo)
Total system memory: 16 Gb DDR4 
Memory speed: 2,133MHz 
Excel version: MS OFfice 365 (Version 2102, Build 13801.20360)
32/64 bit: 64 bit 
Time to sort (No multithreading):72.98 seconds 
Time to sort (Multithreading/8 cores):73.02 seconds (CPU utilization ~30%)


----------



## rodskogj

Results from my media server:

Test date: 3/29/2021
Test Machine: Small Form Factor desktop (Lenovo M910Q - Mid 2018?))
CPU: Intel i7-7700T @ 2.9GHz
#Cores: 4 Cores/ 8 Threads
CPU clock speed: 3.8 Ghz (Turbo)
Total system memory: 16 Gb DDR4 
Memory speed: 2,400MHz 
Excel version: MS Office Pro Plus 2010 (Version 14.7266.500)
32/64 bit: 32 bit 
Time to sort (No multithreading): 129.68 seconds 
Time to sort (Multithreading/8 cores): 131.34 seconds (CPU utilization ~20%)


----------



## rodskogj

Results from my media server:

Test date: 4/16/2021
Test Machine: Desktop (MSI MPG B550I Gaming Edge Wi-Fi Motherboard, Ryzen 5950x, MSI 3090 Suprim)
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5950x
#Cores: 16 Cores/ 32 Threads
CPU clock speed: 4.9 Ghz (Turbo)
Total system memory: 32 Gb DDR4
Memory speed: 3,200MHz
Excel version: MS Office 365 (Version 2103, Build 13901.20336)
32/64 bit: 64 bit
Time to sort (No multithreading): 43.36 seconds
Time to sort (Multithreading/16 cores): 42.56 seconds (CPU utilization ~6%)

Note that while this is a lot faster than the Lenovo X1 Yoga I tested a few weeks ago, the Lenovo was faster at solving a non-linear optimization using solver (302 seconds (Lenovo) vs 329 seconds (This machine)), so newer and 'better' is not always faster


----------



## AVATARAT

CPU: Ryzen 5600x
#Cores: 6/12
CPU clock speed: PBO+CO up to 5150MHz
Total system memory: 16GB
memory speed: 4000MHz
Excel version: O365
32/64 bit: 64bit
time to sort (in seconds): 40.82 sec


----------



## quarterpounder

I'd love to test my machine with your Excel Benchmark, but as I'm using macOS, I can't due to missing ActiveX.
At least Excel claims ActiveX missing while loading the xlsm.

Any idea how to get it playing on a Mac?
Like to test my "old" MacBookPro 15 and the new [email protected] 

Best,
quarterpounder


----------



## huzzug

You can try to run the file on either OpenOffice /LibreOffice for Mac but ActiveX for Mac isn't possible.


----------



## SHinHaruhi

I5 10400F
32GB
excel O365 32 bit
78.07 second


----------



## marsrunner

Ryzen 7 5800X
MSI B550 Gaming Carbon Wifi
2x16 Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4 3200Mhz CL16
Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500GB
36.14 seconds


----------



## SquintyHeart

Hey,

We are benching some PCs in our workplace in terms of Excel performance but not getting anywhere near the speeds others are reporting. 

Windows 10 Enterprise - Build 20H2 - Office 365 64bit

First test bench is a Dell 5820 X-Series with i9 10980XE , 64GB DDR4, 1TB M.2, Quadro P1000 we achieved 1336 completion time. Roughly just a tad over 1second per row
2nd Bench a Lenovo P340 - Xeon W-1270, 64GB ECC, 512GB M2, Quadro P620 achieved 1700seconds.
3rd Bench a Lenovo P340 Tiny - i9 10900, 64GB DDR4, 1TB M.2, Onboard Graphics 1386seconds

Trying on single thread or multithread yield little difference.
Others are getting less than 100seconds with older gen AMD/Intel CPUs, Any ideas?


----------



## tkc1212

CPU: Apple M1
#Cores: 4+4 cores
CPU clock speed: 3.2GHz
Total system memory: 16GB
memory speed: LPDDR4-4266
Excel version: Office 365 running on Windows 11 ARM64 preview on Parallel 17.1.0 on MacOS Monterey 12.0.1
32/64 bit: 64bit
time to sort (in seconds): 37.06


----------



## igor_kavinski

Melan said:


> I ran it in libre office on Mid 2012 Macbook Air. Result was 62 seconds. Comparing it to the results in OP, I doubt very seriously that it is correct lmao.


Librecalc 7.2 is optimized for these types of calculations. Look at the comparison for my i7-4770:

85.36 seconds MT on Excel 2021 v2111 14701.20226
84.94 seconds MT off Excel 2021 v2111 14701.20226
34 seconds Libreoffice 7.3.0.0alpha0


----------



## igor_kavinski

tkc1212 said:


> CPU: Apple M1
> #Cores: 4+4 cores
> CPU clock speed: 3.2GHz
> Total system memory: 16GB
> memory speed: LPDDR4-4266
> Excel version: Office 365 running on Windows 11 ARM64 preview on Parallel 17.1.0 on MacOS Monterey 12.0.1
> 32/64 bit: 64bit
> time to sort (in seconds): 37.06


Not sure how much this result is affected by the virtualization overhead. Can you please post this benchmark's result using Libreoffice running on MacOS?


----------



## grepractice9

26 SECONDS


----------



## GhostSnHUN

CPU:Ryzen 5 5600x
#Cores:6
CPU clock speed:4.65 allcore
Total system memory:16 Gb
memory speed:3733mt
Excel version:365
32/64 bit:64
1. time to sort (in seconds):36.43
2. time to sort (in seconds):25.24
3. time to sort (in seconds):25.18


----------



## Blazko79

Intel M330 2.13GHz (Toshiba L650, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS)
Libre Office 7.3.4.2

First run: 61s
Second run: 35s


----------



## mluz

i9 12900KS
Excel version: 64 bit:
time to sort (in seconds): 36.29

Second time: 20.68


----------



## Triax

CPU: 5900X PBO Auto
Cores: 12c/24T
Total System Memory: 32GB (2x16GB)
RAM Speed: 3200mhz XMP1 Auto Timings

W10 Pro
LibreOffice 7.3.5.2 (x64)

1st Run: 20s
2nd Run: 13s

Just upgraded this CPU from a 2700X and haven't really had time to play around with it much.


----------



## mluz

Ryzen 9 5900HX
Excel version: 64 bit:
time to sort (in seconds): 46.84

Second run: 31.2


----------



## oxacputester

ir88ed said:


> 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*:
> 
> benchmarked_randomized_data2.xlsm
> 
> Original non-timer sheet is here:
> original_randomized_data.xlsx
> 
> 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:
> Excel benchmark - Google Drive


OK

My test on










intel 4770s
low V NO FAN stock zalman

3,1 Ghz to 3,5 or 3,6 Ghz in full

16 Gb RAM DATA 1800 

WD SDD 500 GB

ASUS z87-WS

the times are

139 seconds
second time not closed excel 2010 32 bits = 18 seconds
closed and renew open 138,9 seconds












of course on OC will be better, but for me is irrelevant, 










I LOVE NO FAN CPU COMPUTER and NO FAN superflower PSU 500 W and only 600 rpm on chasis. virtual dBi < 21 ..










This cpu permit a lot of OC, but more hot, more noise and more bill cost ;-)

bye in spain.

oxacputester

capture imgs

PS: of course in windows 8.1 64 btis with excel 2010 32 bits, this is a old pc, but i like it, did i say that not noise ?

;-)


----------



## oxacputester

oxacputester said:


> OK
> 
> My test on
> View attachment 2570395
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;-)



add on: excel used 15 % or cpu, that have 4 cores / 8 HT, this mean that cpus in single mode in oc will be very fast beccause the cpu are very relax in my system... only 15-20 % of cpu permit do another things without lagss in system... 

AMD looks ok.

I dont see how are M2 on apple...


----------

