Need help with CPU

[dlux]

I am building a computer for my co-worker and he is wanting a computer that can process and calculate large amounts of numbers and data through excel. He has a dual-core processor right now (i dont remember which one) but it almost freezes but lags his computer to a snail-like speed, and this is only calculating 1/4 the amount he wants to calculate. Will more cores help at least solve this problem? Which processor would you recommend to start a build with? Thanks for the help everyone.

Cheers

 

[Dasda]

Sandy Bride is what you should be getting. i5 2500 or get K version if willing to overclock. The hyperthreading will also help if you get the i7-2600 or k version but is $100 extra.

 

[veri745]

I'm assuming this is on a desktop/workstation, but you could be referring to a laptop for all I know...

Certain models in Excel really benefit from multithreading. If this is the case, a Phenom II X6 might be a good choice. It might be comparable (but still slower) to the i5 2500 and cheaper.

If his current machine is an old dual core like a Pentium 4 or Athlon64 x2, even a much cheaper upgrade like an Athlon II x4, Phenom II x4, or i5 750 would be a massive upgrade.

It really depends on what he's got and what he's willing to spend.

 

[Lorne]

More Specs on the system at hand, It might be a simple and cheap fix

 

[veri745]

Agree with Lorne, more specs are required.

There are also several scenarios where a new CPU wouldn't even be required.

 

[dlux]

sorry i forgot to be more specific. Ok so he dosent really need to upgrade his laptop but he wants to build a desktop/workstation dedicated to number crunching (excel..ect...). We want to start from scratch. He went to the apple store and is convinced that he should spend 5k on a 12-core macpro. I told him you can do the same but much cheaper if you did a custom build. So with that said, what's a good processor to start with for our needs?

 

[Cerb]

What are the specs of what your coworker is currently using? It's going to be hard to say what would be needed for a minimum real upgrade w/o this info.

Also, ask to find out if there is a bunch of HDD activity while his macros are running. If the data set is fairly large, that could be a bottleneck, too.

A many-core Mac Pro would not be advisable. Chances are exceedingly good that his Excel macros won't scale out well that far, and that faster individual cores would be better than many cores, even if the speed difference is small. Depending on his laptop's specs, even a $1k or so PC might be an extreme improvement.

 

[dlux]

1.83 GHz dual-core he believes it is a Intel Centrino Duo... he got it two years ago. So it is kinda old. So im thinking any kind of processor now would be far superiour to this. Im trying to find the full specs but he dosent remember the model number. he says its a Asus M-series laptop. So right now im trying to look for it

 

[Cerb]

If it's a Core Duo, then pretty much anything will blow it away. If it's a Core 2 Duo, that might still be true, but be much less of a jump in performance (pessimistically figure 3x for a ~3.5GHz SB i5, if thread scaling is poor, and memory is the main bottleneck, and anywhere from 5x on up if it's less memory bound and/or scales very well). It would most likely be a Core 2, as Core were generally obsolete by 2007, and almost unheard of in anything new by 2008.

 

[LucJoe]

Going from a dual core 1.8ghz laptop?

Build him a 2600k, overclock it, run his excel macros and watch him cry tears of joy.

Then tell him you want half of the $4k you saved him over his ridiculous Mac Pro idea.

 

[dlux]

Going from a dual core 1.8ghz laptop?

Build him a 2600k, overclock it, run his excel macros and watch him cry tears of joy.

Then tell him you want half of the $4k you saved him over his ridiculous Mac Pro idea.

i think i will charge him... $4k save yo wallet fee...but thanks alot guys. really appreciate the help.

 

[veri745]

Going from a dual core 1.8ghz laptop?

Build him a 2600k, overclock it, run his excel macros and watch him cry tears of joy.

Then tell him you want half of the $4k you saved him over his ridiculous Mac Pro idea.

Going from a 1.83GHz laptop, even a $99 Athlon II will blow it out of the water.

Large calculation sets on a laptop may be limited by I/O or RAM as well,

 

[Diogenes2]

If he can spend 5k on a mack, he can build a i7 980 -990x based system and have at least 2k for beer money ..

The 2600k system is not a bad idea either..

 

[aigomorla]

I am building a computer for my co-worker and he is wanting a computer that can process and calculate large amounts of numbers and data through excel. He has a dual-core processor right now (i dont remember which one) but it almost freezes but lags his computer to a snail-like speed, and this is only calculating 1/4 the amount he wants to calculate. Will more cores help at least solve this problem? Which processor would you recommend to start a build with? Thanks for the help everyone.

Cheers

can i ask you how big these excel files are?

His biggest benifit might be an SSD because its the lag associated in opening such a big excel file, more so then the cpu processing the excel file.

 

[Concillian]

If 5k is his budget, he can build the 2600k system. If he plays with that for a while and determines it's not enough, he can build a 990x system....

and still have money leftover.

If you overclock the 2600k to a comfortable overclock (4.3-4.5GHz) You're looking at being 5x faster JUST on clock speed and core count. probably another 20-50% on the architecture improvements.

Most noticeable, is that you can probably use the machine for other stuff just fine while crunching.

Also, I have done quite a bit of Excel macro work in my time, and I have seen some really terribly programmed macros. Excel is one of those things that most people have access to. Macros are used to adapt Excel to do something it wasn't really designed for just because it's software someone has, and they aren't allowed to buy better software. This promotes some people into being programmers who are NOT programmers, but they fiddle enough with excel, trusty VB for Excel book by their side, and they get it to do what they want.

These kind of people make really, really, messy and inefficient macros.

I turned one that took over six minutes of processing into one that required about 20 seconds of processing by changing the way the code works and turning application screen updates off during processing. If he's willing to spend 5k on a computer to make his macros run better... perhaps call in a consultant for a few hours to give the macros a once over and make sure they aren't the primary source of the problem. For a few hundred dollars you might not get him to re-write the macros for you, but he can at least point out any glaring sources of inefficiency.

Most of the issues I've seen with macros are really simple things. In the extreme case I noted it was really 2 things. application.screenupdating=false in the beginning (plus the accompanying true at the end), then reading excel spreadsheet values into an array instead of continually referring to the sheets. It was making so many calls to so many sheets, it was MUCH faster to just read entire sheets into a big array, then reference array locations instead of flipping back and forth to the various sheets. HUGE efficiency improvements for a couple hours worth of work.

 

[Diogenes2]

can i ask you how big these excel files are?

His biggest benifit might be an SSD because its the lag associated in opening such a big excel file, more so then the cpu processing the excel file.

Excellentpoint!!

 

[tweakboy]

You get a SSD for him and lots of RAM and he wont complain anymore.