How Fast Is Your System?
Just for fun, take a few minutes and post your result. Copy and paste this procedure into a VBA module. Then run it, and post the time it takes.
Sub TimeTest()
'100 million random numbers, tests, and math operations
Dim x As Long
Dim StartTime As Single
Dim i As Long
x = 0
StartTime = Timer
For i = 1 To 100000000
If Rnd <= 0.5 Then x = x + 1 Else x = x - 1
Next i
MsgBox Timer - StartTime & " seconds"
End Sub
Here's the time on my system (no significant difference between Excel 2003, 2007, and 2010 Tech Preview):
My system is about three years old. I'm just curious about the range of processor speed of systems in use. Is it possible to run this in less than a second?
- Reader Comments -
Following are comments in response to this item.
The most recent comment is at the bottom.
- By Allen. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 6:33pm7.43 seconds.
Processor x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 6 GenuineIntel ~2992 Mhz - By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 6:44pmGood idea to include the processor. Mine is:
Intel Core2 CPU 6700 @2.66GHz (whatever that means) - By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 6:49pmOh yeah, bonus points if x =0 when it ends!
- By Jason. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 7:02pmI have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ 2.80 GHz and it took 13.36328 seconds.
Jason - By Virgil. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 7:39pm16.25 sec using Excel 2003
Windows XP Home Edition
Processor
3.00 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4
1 GB of RAM - By MT. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 7:43pm8.17 seconds
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 at 2.4ghz, running Vista, CPU usage peaked at 38% and only used 3 of 4 cores. Weird. - By Debra Dalgleish. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 8:03pm10.14063 seconds
2.27 gigahertz Intel Core2 Duo P8400
Microsoft Windows XP Professional - By Beth Appel. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 8:30pm16.78125 seconds
Intel Pentium M processor 1.86 gigahertz
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
2 GB of RAM - By Rick Rothstein (MVP - Excel). Comment posted 12 November, 2009 8:41pmIntel Core2 Extreme CPU Q6800 @2.93 GHz over-clocked to 3.73 Ghz
The time taken was 6.039063 seconds. - By gary keramidas. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 8:44pm5.08 seconds running win7 x64 in 2003, 2007 and 2010.
intel i940 @2.93ghz with 9gb ddr3. - By DK. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 8:52pm14,85938 using Genuine Intel T2050 @ 1.60GHz, 0,99 GB of RAM
- By Clint. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 9:14pm9.984375s on winXP SP3 Intel Core 2 Duo T7500 2.20GHz 1.96GB Ram
- By Doug jenkins. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 10:10pm"Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 at 2.4ghz, running Vista, CPU usage peaked at 38% and only used 3 of 4 cores. Weird. "
Not really. VBA doesn't support multi-core processors.
mine was about 8.97 sec.
INTEL CORE2, Model 23 Stepping 10
Made no difference with VBE open/closed, or paste and run immediately vs save, close and re-open. - By Omar. Comment posted 12 November, 2009 10:40pm7.687012 seconds.
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz. I built this one about a year ago. - By Oguz. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 12:50am19,09 seconds using Excel 2003 running on XP pro. 59 workbooks are open during the test. Does the number opened files effect the time?
- By Mathias. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 1:02am11.38
Win7 Pro x64, Office 2007
Intel Xeon, Quad core @ 2.00 GHz - By Mathias. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 1:19amJust for kicks - equivalent code in C# in a virtual machine: 2.73 seconds...
- By Jean-Marie Lambert. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 1:24amHello,
Windows 7 - Office 2007
8.09375
Intel Core2 Duo CPU P9600 @2.66GHz
Have a good day - By Gordon. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 1:36amI get about 16 seconds on an Intel Pentium 4 521 (2.8GHz)
Given that there are currently only a couple of x86 processors (marginally) faster at integer math than Gary Keramidas' Core i7 940, I reckon that a <1 second run is not acheiveable...yet
- By Patrick. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 2:05am'Excel 2007, 8.7s Dell Vostro, Intel Core 2 Quad, Q9450, 2.66Ghz
- By Chandoo. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 2:37am20.9345 seconds, have 20 windows open with some developer environments.
Intel Centrino Duo on Win Xp with Excel 2007 - Laptop (lenovo t60) - By Stephen. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 3:12am24.8 seconds under normal working conditions Excel 2000 on Windows 2000: Compaq nc2400 while playing a CD using WMP, Outlook 2003, two IE6 windows, Sophos security + other corporate c**p.
- By Ross. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 3:30am13.9 seconds
I thought that would be the slowest, guess this system is not as bad as I thought!
centrio due 1 gb ram. - By JP. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 7:11amTook about 8.1 seconds, computer is Intel Core2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66 GHz with 2 GB RAM and Win XP SP2 w/ Excel 2003.
- By SB. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 7:37amUsing PerfMon:
Count Total Avg Max
20 195.62626 9.78131 9.81196
Intel Core2 T7600 @ 2.33 GHz, 2.0 GB of RAM - By TGIF Chart. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 7:39amCan somebody please prepare a chart for the data. It would be interesting to see the range in visual form.
- By Chad. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 8:11am28.23
Excel 2007 - By Phil. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 8:43am21.8 seconds Celeron D "320" 2.40 GHz (purchased 2004)
- By chip. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 9:07am9.73 seconds
- By chip. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 9:11amShould've read the comments first:
Intel Core 2 CPU T7400 2.16 GHz, 2Gb RAM.
9.73 Seconds - By Sébastien lABONNE. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 9:21amI got 8.60
I run an Intel Core2 Duo T8300 @2.40GHz with 4Go of RAM
Vista and Office 2007 - By Anibal. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 9:42am19.29
Pentium 4 3.0 GHZ - By Allen. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 10:06amI wonder if this little test program would be a reasonable metric in selecting a computer next time. I could see myself going into BestBuy and saying to one of the GeekSquad people, "Hey, this computer is less expensive than that one, but it runs just as fast -- I'll take it." What do you think? It would be cool to have a series of little programs you could run to put a computer through it's paces so you'd know how fast it is compared to others. The only thing I find you can go by right now is price, which is a poor indicator in my opinion.
- By Puneet. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 10:17am11.29 secs
Intel T5600 @ 1.83ghz
1 GB ram
Windows XP SP2 home edition - By Bryan. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 10:29am10.40625 secs
Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2200 @2.20Ghz
1.97GB of Ram - By SilverSTreak. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 10:54am28.51563 secs
HW:
AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1.54 Ghz
1.5 GB RAM
SW:
Win XP Pro SP2, Excel 2003
Hmmm... More RAM or new machine
- By Dick Kusleika. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 11:17am19.17188
4yo Dell Latitude D810 Pentium M 1.73GHz, 2G ram. - By Toad. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 11:19am5.390625 secs
Windows 7 64-bit, Intel Core-i5 @ 2.67Ghz - By Toad. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 11:20amOh, I forgot: Excel 2007
- By Jim Cone. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 11:40am21.5 seconds
2.0 Ghz Pentium
1 Gb Ram
Windows XP
Excel 97 and Excel 2003 (identical times)
7 year old system - By Charles Urban. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 11:55am12.42578
- By Blayne. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 12:34pm18.10938 seconds, 2003
x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 9 GenuineIntel ~2793 Mhz - By Charles Urban. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 12:48pm12.42578 Seconds.
Dell Laptop Latitude D630,
Intel Core Duo 1.8GHz
2G Ram
Excel 2007
Less than a year - By Charles Urban. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 12:56pmI had to know what X was. So I ran it again. Modifying the program to display X.
12.25391
X = -1394.
I was expecting X to be close to 0. - By Charles Urban. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 1:09pm=ROUND(1394/100000000,4) = 0
- By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 1:52pmHere's a chart for the first 45 comments. I'll update this when the responses stop coming in. The horizontal axis shows 1-second increments: 5.00-5.99, 6.00-6.99, etc.
Count = 37
Average = 13.62
Min = 5.08
Max = 28.52 - By Lyubomir Georgiev. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 2:36pm9.14 seconds
Intel Core Duo .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - By Jim. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 3:29pm8.734375 seconds.
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.5 Ghz
2 GB Ram
Excel 2007 on Windows Vista - By Gregory. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 5:37pmVista 32 bit, Intel Core Duo 2 T5270, 1.42 GHz, 3GB ram, Excel 2003 & 2007 average 15.24 sec.
- By Frederick Chidester Sr. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 7:35pmOn my old machine - 8.625 seconds
Specs> MS Windows Vista Ultimate - 6.0.6002 W/SP2
HP Pavilion X86 based PC
Intel Core 2 Quad CPO Q6700 @ 2.66 GHz - By Rob. Comment posted 13 November, 2009 8:05pm2005 PC, Vista 32 bit, AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+, 2,194 MHz, 2GB RAM, Excel 2003.
17.22461 seconds
I'm about to upgrade this PC to Vista 64-bit with 4GB RAM so I wonder what the difference will be? - By Dan. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 5:16amRuntime error '16':
Expression too complex
I get the 'almost' every time i try to run JW's code!!
The help file says its something to do with too many nested expressions for a 32-bit system...
Anyone else having this problem or know what might be up..?
When it did run time is 11.2182 seconds
[Spec: Acer5720 Intel Core Duo T7300, 2GHz, 2GB RAM] - By tester. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 5:48am9.5 s on XP pro sp3, Excel 2003, Intel Core 2 Duo 2 Ghz, 2 GB RAM
- By Matt. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 6:36am18.8s
Intel P4 3.2, 1Gb RAM, Win7, Excel 2007 - By Dan. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 6:54amHad to resort to this hack!!
On Error Resume Next
For i = 1 To 100000000
If Rnd < 0.5 Then x = x + 1 Else x = x - 1
Next i
On Error GoTo 0
Average time = 10.47856 seconds
Excel 2007 on Vista btw. - By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 7:16amI have no idea why you'd get a runtime error, Dan. Odd that it happens only some of the time.
- By Roger Mason. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 8:41amHi,
Tried it a couple of times my lowest was
19.125 seconds (max. was 20.48438)
Compaq Presario AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3200+ 994Mhz 1.37GB RAM
Windows XP, Excel 2007 - By Doug jenkins. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 3:21pmYesterday - about 9 seconds
Today - about 28 seconds
Today after checking power settings and changing from "balanced" to "high performance" - still about 28 seconds
Today after reboot - back to 9 seconds
Not sure what is happening there. Changing power settings doesn't need a reboot does it?
Computer is a Dell Studio notebook - By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 14 November, 2009 4:53pmI tried running the same code in Windows Scripting Host. I did it several times, and it took between 75-120 seconds. Not sure why it varied so much.
To try it, paste this into Notepad, save the file as timer.vbs, and double-click it:
x = 0
StartTime = Timer
For i = 1 To 100000000
If Rnd <= 0.5 Then x = x + 1 Else x = x - 1
Next
MsgBox Timer - StartTime & " seconds" - By Darren. Comment posted 15 November, 2009 5:09am10.28 seconds
Excel 2007 Sp1
Windows 7 64-BIT, HP Laptop 4gb MEM, amd TRURION II mOBILE m520, 2.3 gHZ - By Dan. Comment posted 15 November, 2009 11:22am
For i = 1 To 100000000#
If Rnd <= 0.5! Then x = x + 1 Else x = x - 1
Next i
Use of the constants certainly helps excel churn through this a touch quicker... - By Tony. Comment posted 15 November, 2009 12:40pm8.53
Another one on an Intel Core2 CPU 6700 @2.66GHz - By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 15 November, 2009 1:12pmYou're right, Dan. Adding those two characters shaved 1.5 seconds off of my time.
- By Halford. Comment posted 15 November, 2009 7:13pm13.59 seconds
Excel 2003, Windows XP, uncertain of specs but machine is 3 yrs old
I am certain that I need a new machine. - By Roger Mason. Comment posted 16 November, 2009 1:56amHi again - post 57 before,
Thought I would try this again on my PC at work, this time it was
7.261719 ......Wow
Then with Dan's additional characters
6.310547 ......Double Wow
Dell Precision T3400 Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz 3.25 GB RAM
Windows XP Excel 2007......I think I need to change my home pc for one like this - By PetLahev. Comment posted 16 November, 2009 2:45amHello
9.03 sec
Intel Core Duo T7500 2.2 GHz, 3.49 GB RAM - By Rob. Comment posted 16 November, 2009 10:02amIntel Core2 Duo 2.99
Excel 2000 7.82
Excel 2003 7.80
Excel 2007 7.68 - By Rick Rothstein (MVP - Excel). Comment posted 16 November, 2009 12:55pmDan, John...
I don't think affixing the # sign (for Double data type) on the 100000000 number really does anything as the loop limits are only evaluated one time for the entire loop. However, adding the ! (for Single data type) makes a significant difference. If you define the 0.5 as a Single Const(ant), then I show an even bigger improvement. Do others see that also?
Sub TimeTest()
'100 million random numbers, tests, and math operations
Dim x As Long
Dim StartTime As Single
Dim i As Long
Const Half As Single = 0.5
x = 0
StartTime = Timer
For i = 1 To 100000000
If Rnd <= Half Then x = x + 1 Else x = x - 1
Next i
MsgBox Timer - StartTime & " seconds"
End Sub - By Ed Kavanaugh. Comment posted 16 November, 2009 1:31pm17.625
Dell Latitude 610
Pentium M
Win XP SP2
Office 2007 - By Rob G. Comment posted 16 November, 2009 6:20pm11.3 seconds (original version)
9.9 seconds (Rick's modified)
Machine: Intel Core2 Duo T7300 @ 2.000GHz
OS: Windows XP Pro
Office: 2007 - By simon. Comment posted 17 November, 2009 2:43am13.7 secs
Core duo T2400 1.83 w/ 2Gb ram laptop
Win XP SP2 Excel 2003
Eqiv code took 2.7 secs in C++ and 15 in a VB6 exe. - By VsnaH. Comment posted 17 November, 2009 7:29am7 years old PC with Intel Pentium 4, 2.53 GHz, Windows XP Home, Excel 2002.
Original code: 17.25 sec.
With both 0.5 and 100000000 defined as constants: 15.05 sec. - By Nick Burns. Comment posted 17 November, 2009 12:15pmOS Name: Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Version: 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 Build 2600
System Model: Vostro1510
Processor: x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 13 GenuineIntel ~1795 Mhz
Total Physical Memory: 2,048.00 MB
Available Physical Memory: 972.31 MB
Time: 10.64063 seconds - By Ed Ferrero. Comment posted 17 November, 2009 7:45pmDell Latitude E6500
Intel Core2 Duo 2.26GHz
4GB RAM
Vista 64-bit
Office 2007
Times;
Excel 8.988, 8.937, 8.968
Access 8.828, 8.863, 8.832
Word 9.000, 9.015, 9.019 - By matse. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 12:48amOffice 2007 SP1
Windows XP Pro SP2
E2180@2GHZ 2GB RAM
~10.1 with OP code
~8.5 with 0.5! instead of 0.5 in the If condition
greets - By Marcus from London. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 1:25am15.21875
This is on a work box - running Excel 2003 (SP3) on a Xeon 3.20 Ghz with 4 Gig RAM (although XP only 'sees' 3.5 of it). - By Mike Woodhouse. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 2:38am10.29 sec (Xeon 5130 @ 2.00Ghz, WinXP SP3, Excel 2002)
16.33 sec (Xeon @ 2.99Ghz, WinXP SP1, Excel 2002)
That old 50% faster Xeon showing its (4+ year) age. Compared with some of the scores above, so is the new (2 year-old) zippy slow Xeon. Time to start lobbying for an upgrade, methinks... - By David. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 3:14am17.9804 sex
Excel 2003 SP3
Pentium 4 2.99Ghz
Ran a couple of times more and got very similar times. - By Niketya. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 4:18am10.73482 sec
Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2133 MHz
Physical Memory : 4096 MB (4 x 1024 DDR2-SDRAM )
Operating System : Microsoft Windows XP Professional 5.01.2600 Service Pack 3
Office : 2007 Pro SP2 - By Michael. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 6:38am5.69 Sec w/ 0.5!
6.89 Sec w/o 0.5!
Intel Core2 Duo CPU
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
1.97Ghz, 3.46GB of RAM
Windows XP SP3, XL2003 - By aivars. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 1:40pm17.40625 secs
- By Chris. Comment posted 18 November, 2009 4:08pm9.011719 seconds
Excel 2003
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @2.33GHz - By Dean Cardno. Comment posted 19 November, 2009 10:03am6.826 seconds on Core 2 duo 3GHz, 4GB RAM, running XL2003 under WinXP Pro. I couldn't tell you the CPU version number, but SysInfo reports that it is a "Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10" for people who speak that language.
When code was modified per comment #68 above, with "Half" set as a single constant the time dropped to 5.857 sec - By Ed Hansberry. Comment posted 19 November, 2009 3:43pm10.30078 seconds on a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo T7400 mobile processor on 64bit Windows 7 with 3GB of RAM.
- By Ed Hansberry. Comment posted 19 November, 2009 9:11pmOh, here you go. 44.55 seconds on a netbook. Let's here it for those 1.6GHz Atom processors!
- By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 19 November, 2009 9:24pmLadies and gentlemen, we have our official "outlier." I think I have a VBA function that calculates the average and excludes such things. It's called AVG_EXCLUDING_NETBOOK.
- By Magda. Comment posted 20 November, 2009 5:36amHi
can't check "how fast is my system"
Intel Celeron 1 GHz, 256 MB RAM ( do you even remember that?)Ex2003 and 43.18s
quite close to netbook - By chation. Comment posted 21 November, 2009 5:37amTime used:
10.25sec
after proved code from dan ,
the result is 8.57sec
PC configure:
常规
电脑: 联想 IdeaPad Y450 笔记本电脑
操作系统: Windows XP 专业版 ( 32位 / SP2 / DirectX 9.0c )
硬件
处理器: 英特尔 酷睿2 双核 T6600 @ 2.20GHz 笔记本处理器
主板: 联想 KL1 ( 英特尔 4 Series Chipset 笔记本芯片组 )
内存: 2 GB ( 三星 DDR3 1067 MHz )
主硬盘: 西数 WDC WD3200BEVT-22ZCT0 ( 320 GB )
显卡: Nvidia GeForce GT 240M ( 512 MB / 联想 )
--------鲁大师: V2.46-------- - By Omar. Comment posted 21 November, 2009 7:48amFinally ran this on my work computer. A 2 year old Dell Optiplex 745C with Intel 6700 Core2 at 2.66GHz.
8.546875
The netbook posting above just about took all the energy out of my decision to buy one of those. Wow. - By Ray. Comment posted 21 November, 2009 11:00am11.3125 seconds in the excel 2010 beta, Vista Home Prem SP2, 32 bit OS, Gateway PC, 3 GB of ram, Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2180 @ 2 Ghz
- By Ray. Comment posted 21 November, 2009 11:05amAfter changing the code, per post# 68 - Rick Rothstein, the performance improved to 9.32 seconds, or about 2 seconds (17.5%) quicker.
(now that's interesting ... ) - By Doug jenkins. Comment posted 22 November, 2009 2:47pmTiming with modified code compared with original:
Excel 2007
Core2Duo P8700 2.53Ghz, 4 GB RAM
Original 8.876953125
Rnd <= 0.5! 8.02734375 -9.57%
As above + 1 = 1 to 100000000# 7.98828125 -10.01%
Const Half as Double = 0.5 8.806640625 -0.79%
Const Half as Single = 0.5 7.892578125 -11.09% - By Scott Baker. Comment posted 23 November, 2009 4:37pmExcel 2003
Original Code = 8.125 seconds
Core 2 Duo E7200 @ 2.53GHz
3.48 GB RAM
XP SP3 - By Mike. Comment posted 24 November, 2009 4:05am16.59 seconds.
Pentium 4, 480 MB RAM @ 3.2 GHz
Win XP SP2 - By pgd. Comment posted 25 November, 2009 10:02pm9.265625
2.40 gigahertz Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
XP Pro SP3 (build 2600)
Excel TwentyTen (Beta) - By michael_aussie. Comment posted 01 December, 2009 2:08pm12.69 seconds
- By Tim Miller. Comment posted 01 December, 2009 10:52pm7.769531
Intel Core 2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00Ghz
Running Windows 7 64 Bit and Office 2007
I also saw only a max usage on one core of 65% and mostly under 50%, and the other cores hardly doing anything.
A tad disappointed in that result! - By BVE. Comment posted 03 December, 2009 10:18am10.76563
x <> 0
2Ghz Intel Core Duo
XP SP2
2GB Ram - By Gordon. Comment posted 03 December, 2009 4:08pmTried this on my new home machine
7.22s
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93GHz
3GB RAM
Windows 7 32-bit
Office 2003
It's pretty clear, and not at all surprising, that the only thing that has become clear is the pretty much linear inverse correlation between clockspeed and benchmark time when comparing processors from the same family/generation.
As such, this is an interesting way to compare the efficiency of different processors at similar clockspeeds for *integer* operations where multi-threading and cache/memory subsystems are not used. Unfortunately, these circumstances are pretty rare and fairly irrelevant in day to day computing. - By VBA Nubie. Comment posted 04 December, 2009 12:20pm7.796875 seconds with an Intel Core2 Duo, WinXP, Excel 2003, with 2 Gig of DDR2 800 DIMM
- By Max. Comment posted 08 December, 2009 3:47pmI followed both John's and Dan's (#61) code. First run without Dan's extra two characters was 12 seconds. Second run, with Dan's characters, was 10.48438 seconds, over 1.5 seconds faster.
Win XP Pro v2002 SP3
Dell Vostro V1710
2.00 GHz, 2 GB RAM - By Len. Comment posted 09 December, 2009 8:22am14.65 sec using Excel 2003
Windows XP Pro SP3
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 @ 2.6 GHz (no overclocking)
*** This was the #1 PC cpu avail in Feb 05
2 GB ddr400 ram - By bryan. Comment posted 13 December, 2009 8:40am17.75391 seconds using Excel 2007
Windows Vista Home Premium
Pentium(R)Dual-Core CPU T4200 @ 2.00 GHz
3.00 GB RAM - By sneakysnake. Comment posted 20 December, 2009 7:16pmI thought I would do an experiment BEFORE and AFTER upgrading to Excel 2007. Time test BEFORE in Excel 2002 was 12.29 seconds. AFTER in Excel 2007 was 16.89 seconds. Same BAT system - different BAT time. MS XP Pro 2002 SP2, AMD Athlon(tm) 64x2Dual Core Processor 4200+2.21 GHz, 2.00 GB of RAM.
- By D. Comment posted 21 December, 2009 8:02pm6.32 Sec
x9650@3600Mhz 1:1 8GbDDR2 Vista64bit Excel2007 - By Bill S. Comment posted 22 December, 2009 5:10pmInteresting results:
20.1 seconds on Excel 2007
19.5 seconds on Excel 2003
4-year-old HP Pavilion with 1 gb memory, 2.8 GHz Celeron processor
Windows XP SP3 - By Woody L. Comment posted 28 December, 2009 6:23am5.2 sec
Excel 2003
XP SP3
i7 920 @ 2.67GHz - By colin r. Comment posted 30 December, 2009 5:23am11.6 seconds
Excel 2007
XP SP3
3GB RAM
E4400 @ 2.0ghZ - By Geoff Hudson. Comment posted 06 January, 2010 9:48pmCeleron 420 1gb RAM 1.6ghz
14.23416 secs
What a dog! - By Henry Stockbridge. Comment posted 07 January, 2010 10:00am26.5 seconds
Excel 2003
AMD Athlon XP 1800+
XP SP3
... a Netbook wannabe! - By Ken. Comment posted 07 January, 2010 9:48pm7.35 Seconds.
- By Jim A. Comment posted 09 January, 2010 9:26pmJim A
Excel 2010 Beta 2 64bit 22.8 Seconds
on the same computer running XPmode 32bit with Excel 2007 sp2 32bit 5.7 Seconds
Supermicro MB 8xdal 17 920 12gb memory windows7 64bit
Mircosoft has some work to do on the 64bit code - By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 10 January, 2010 8:19amI tried it with 64-bit Excel 2010 Beta, Windows 7, Intel Core i7-920 processor(8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
5.65 seconds. - By R Timmerhoff. Comment posted 10 January, 2010 2:12pm17.4 seconds to run the computer time.
- By James Kobzeff. Comment posted 13 January, 2010 4:31pm10.3125 seconds XP Pro Excel 2003
- By RL. Comment posted 16 January, 2010 6:34am4.64 seconds
Core i7 860 @2.8 Ghz (normal running speed), 8GB RAM
Windows 7 64 bit with Excel 2007 - By G Jones. Comment posted 31 January, 2010 7:03pm9.58 sec
Intel Core(TM) 2 Quad CPU .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) GHz
64 bit op. sys.; EXCEL 2007; Windows Vista
It was my first VBA - By Matthew Henson. Comment posted 01 February, 2010 5:07am10.8 seconds
Core 2 Duo (P7350) at 2 GHz running Excel 2010 beta on Win 7 (both 32-bit) on VirtualBox 3.1.2 - nothing unusual.
Outlier: 148 seconds
The average time on the same machine running Excel 2004 on Mac OS X 10.6. Longest run was 155 seconds. You would have to buy three netbooks to get that much slowness. - By Patrick. Comment posted 11 April, 2010 9:05pmI tried running the code, but it did not work. It didn't recognize "Timer" as a valid variable until I declared it as a single. (Note: the "must declare variables" option is unchecked fore me). After declaring it as a singe, the program worked, but the msg box displayed "0". Any idea what is going on here?
Great book by the way (Excel 2003: Power Programming with VBA), its really helping me develop my VBA skills! - By John Walkenbach. Comment posted 11 April, 2010 9:31pmPatrick, click Tools-References and see if a reference is missing.
- By Ken Olsson. Comment posted 28 May, 2010 8:11pm4.992188 Seconds
Dell XPS Studio with Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.67 GHz 8GB Ram
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
MS Excel 2002 - By AZJohnB. Comment posted 03 June, 2010 5:34pm15.15 Seconds on a Win 2K Pro, Excel 2003, 2GB Ram, Raid 0
Intel 2.8GZ with Hyperthreading. - By Alexander. Comment posted 04 June, 2010 12:29amI got some strange results. The machine is a Core 2 Duo, E8400 @ 3.00 GHz, 8GB.
The main OS is Win7.x64 running Office 2010.x64. The test finished after 22.79 seconds, rather disappointing.
BUT, with Office 2003 on WinXP running in a virtual machine (VMWare 7.1) on the same hardware, the test stopped after 7.09 seconds!
How could that happen? - By Hui.... Comment posted 04 June, 2010 7:29amHP Intel i7 930
Win 7 (64bit) Excel 10 Beta
4.78 secs
using original code - By DukeD. Comment posted 05 June, 2010 8:48pmDell XPS 435T
Win 7 x64
Excel 2007
i7 920
12gb Ram
5.507813 seconds original
5.367188 seconds w/ Rick Rothstein mods - By DukeD. Comment posted 08 June, 2010 2:34pmDell XPS 435T
Win 7 x64
i7 920
12gb Ram
Excel 2010 64-bit
19.69531 seconds original
16.03906 seconds w/ Rick Rothstein mods
Excel 20007
5.507813 seconds original
5.367188 seconds w/ Rick Rothstein mods - By Sner. Comment posted 19 July, 2010 3:25pmDell XPS-630
Intel Core 2 duo (E8400) at 3.0 Ghz
6.71 seconds
Excel 2007; Windows Xp - By Soldier PL. Comment posted 30 July, 2010 11:45am8.87 seconds on Excel 2007 (Windows XP SP2)
System:
AMD Athlon II x2 240 dual core 2.8GHz
2GB ddr2 800 - By A. Drone. Comment posted 14 September, 2010 8:18am9.171875 seconds in Excel 2007
system:
x86 family 6 model 15 stepping genuineIntel ~2194 Mhz
nVidia 8400 GS, 2gb RAM (shared) - By P. Imrith. Comment posted 06 October, 2010 12:09pmhp dv4-2160us i5 430M(2.26GHz)
4 GB
win 7 x64
excel 2007
time(original code) : 6.8 sec
vmware player running on the same OS above
win xp
2.7 GB
excel 2007
time (original code) : 7.5 sec - By Gordon. Comment posted 07 October, 2010 4:05amRunning a loaner Dell Latitude D430 with a U7600 1.2GHz ULV Core 2 Duo chip at the moment.
It shows the per-clock gains in efficiency over older micro-architectures as it posts times (~18s) only a bit slower than my old P4 desktop (and about the same as an 64bit i7, ha!), but at less than half the clockspeed and about 10% of the max TDP (10W vs. 84W). - By phil. Comment posted 13 October, 2010 1:33pm34.6 seconds. Win7 home premium/Excel 2010 64bit, 3GB RAM
Athlon II P320 Dual-core 2.10Ghz (Toshbia Satellite C655D)
This dual-core, 64bit cpu listed as a "High Mid Range CPU" (cpubenchmark.net Oct 2010)
took 34.6 seconds to do what my old (2004), very inexpensive Intel Celeron D did in 21.8!
Not what i expected...
(Celeron D 320 2.4Ghz, Vista/Excel 2007 32bit, 3GB RAM) - By Adam. Comment posted 18 October, 2010 4:36am13.69 seconds
Win Vista Business, Excel 2007, 3GB RAM,
Intel Core2 Duo CPU T5470 @ 1.60GHz, 1601 MHz - By Gordon. Comment posted 24 October, 2010 5:45am17.144 with the Original code
14.179 with the mod using the constant Half
7.382 seconds also declaring Rnd as integer
Windows Vista Business 32 Bit
Acer Veriton L410
AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core processor 4400+ 2.3 Ghz
Memory 2.00 GB
Excel 2010 Student and Home version
Gordon in Italy - By Gordon in Italy. Comment posted 24 October, 2010 12:53pmI realize that declaring Rnd as an Integer defeats the randomness factor, but it is a notable speed difference. It really makes you think about the importance of variable declarations in your code.
Gordon in Italy - By GMac. Comment posted 27 October, 2010 4:47amI am seriously concerned about Excel 2010 64 bit speed:
Core i7 960 overclocked to 4Ghz 12 Gb RAM, under Excel 2010 64 bit on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit, 14 seconds
Running on same machine, under XP Virtual machine on Excel 2007, 4 seconds
For comparison my laptop Core 2 Duo at 2.4Ghz XP SP3 Excel 2007 gives 8 seconds.
The Excel 2010 I am using is Version 14.0.4760.1000 (64-bit)
Can anybody who is getting an appropriate-for-processor speed under Excel 2010 64 bit say what version they have - I don't seem to be the only one with this problem.
Thanks - By Eugene. Comment posted 26 November, 2010 11:18pm9.70
Intel(R)Core 2Duo T7250 @ 2.00GHz
Window XP Office 2010
by the way great site. - By Helmuth. Comment posted 28 November, 2010 1:27amI took Rick's code,
did a little bit tidy up(unimportant) but
defined rnd !!!!
rnd undefined defaults to VARIANT !!!!!!!
Time it took undefined: about 8 secs
Time it took defined: about 2,35 secs !!!!
Not so bad?
Sub TimeTest()
'100 million random numbers, tests, and math operations
Dim x As Long
Dim i As Long
Dim StartTime As Single
Const Half As Single = 0.5
Dim rnd As Single ' originally rnd is undefined and defaults to a Variant !
x = 0
StartTime = Timer
Debug.Print StartTime, Half
For i = 1 To 100000000
If rnd <= Half Then
x = x + 1
Else
x = x - 1
End If
Next i
Debug.Print Timer - StartTime & " seconds"
End Sub - By Mike. Comment posted 02 December, 2010 11:26amSad, sad little machine...
14.42188 seconds (original formula)
Intel (R) Pentium (R) 4 CPU 3.60Ghz
3.59 Ghz, 2.00 GB of RAM
MS Windows XP Professional
Version 2002 Service Pack 3 - By RookiePL. Comment posted 18 December, 2010 9:02am8.16 sec on Athlon 240 2.8Ghz dual core
2GB ddr2 800
640GB WD drive - By Richard. Comment posted 25 December, 2010 10:29am5.24 seconds
Intel Core i7 920 2.67GHz, 6GB ram, Windows 7, 64-bit
with a few things running - By Jim Cone. Comment posted 25 December, 2010 3:04pmFollow on to post #40 of 13 months ago where time was 21.5 seconds.
With new computer from under the Christmas tree:
I3 Processor x86 Family 6 Model 37 Stepping 5 Genuine Intel ~3200 Mhz
4 GB ram, Windows XP, Excel 2003
I get the following results...
4.70 seconds
4.64 seconds (declaration as Single) - By Niketya. Comment posted 23 March, 2011 2:04pmFollow on to post #79.
New system. HyperThreading, SpeedStep and TurboBoost are all enabled. Using ThrottleStop I set the multipler to Turbo.
OS: Win 7 Pro 64 bit
Office: 2010 32 bit
CPU: Core i7 860 @ 2.80 - 3.30 Ghz
RAM: 8GB
Code unchanged: 4.765625 seconds
Helmuth's changes: 2.03125 seconds
I don't get the above numbers on my dell precision workstation. - By Allen Cody. Comment posted 09 April, 2011 10:58am4/9/2011
Just finished your Excel VBA Programming for Dummies -- excellent starting point. Thanks. Have already written a few [simple] macros.
My very new i7 CPU 870 at 2.93GHz w/8.0G RAM came in at 4.476563 - By Allen Cody. Comment posted 09 April, 2011 11:11am4/9/2011
Wow! Just ran again with Helmuth's macro (#1389) and came in at 1.929688
Other version at 4.476563
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Office 10
i7 CPU 870 @ 2.93 GHz
8.0 Gig RAM - By Bill McNair. Comment posted 14 April, 2011 7:11amOriginal version: 6.783203 secs
Helmuth's version: 2.054688 secs (in VBA window)
Helmuth's version: 2.050871 secs (in spreadsheet)
Windows Vista 32-bit;
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @3.00GHz
Excel 2007 32-bit - By Jim Cone. Comment posted 15 April, 2011 8:51amInformation...
"Rnd" is a VBA function it is not a variable.
It returns a random value less than 1 but greater than or equal to zero.
Declaring it as a Single just makes it a variable with a value of zero. That is why the code runs faster.
The modification to make is...
Change: If Rnd <= 0.5
To: If Rnd <= 0.5!
(the ! is the type declaration character for Single) - By Rick. Comment posted 12 August, 2011 1:30pmBoth tested with original code
Lenovo Desktop
Windows XP Professional, Excel 2007
32-bits, Intel Core 2Duo E7500 2,93Ghz, 2GB RAM
Time: 6,91s
Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Windows Vista Home Premium, Excel 2007
64-bits, Intel Core 2Duo T6500 2,1Ghz, 4GB RAM
Time: 9,72s - By Michael Dawley. Comment posted 25 October, 2011 9:27am5.257813 seconds
Intel Core i5 M520 @ 2.40GHz 4.00 GB 64-bit Windows 7 - By xl. Comment posted 12 November, 2011 11:35amThis is weird - my core i7 2670QM with Excel 2010 64bit made test in 19 seconds :x...my next notebook with ultra low volatege processor (SU9400 1,4GHz) did the test in 14 seconds...what am I missing?
- By xl. Comment posted 12 November, 2011 11:36am*ultra low VOLTAGE
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Spreadsheet Page Blog
Welcome to the Spreadsheet Page Blog. This is where you find the latest news on my books, add-ins, and other Excel-related topics. Comments are welcome.