A couple of weeks ago, I did an initial look at running spreadsheets in Excel 2010 on six-core processors from AMD and Intel, but at the time, I only had a couple of systems to test with. I've now had a chance to try out a number of different six-core systems, both using standard frequency CPUs and overclocked versions.

My basic conclusion hasn't changed, and it's not too surprising: Intel provides more performance, both overall and clock-to-clock for most tests, but AMD's CPUs are a lot less expensive.

Details after the jump

For these tests, I used a variety of systems, but the CPU and the associated memory system are responsible for the performance differences, as all the tests were loaded into memory (thus not using the hard drives at that point) and Excel doesn't take particular advantage of advanced graphics cards. The different CPUs have different amounts of cache memory as part of the chips themselves, and that probably does account for some of the difference. All were running 64-bit Windows 7 and 32-bit Office 2010.

The systems I used included: 

• A Dell Studio XPS 7100 running a 2.8GHz AMD Phenom II X6 1055T, with 6 GB of DDR3 memory.
• A "white box" systems equipped with a 3.2 GHz AMD Phenom II X6 1090T with 4 GB of DDR3 memory.
• The same system, overclocked to 3.4 GHz. (Unfortunately, that was as fast as we could reliably get the system to run using AMD's Overdrive software).
• A "white box" running a 3.2 GHz Intel Core i7-970, with 4 GB of DDR3 memory.
• A Polywell system with a 3.33 GHz Intel Core i7-980X, with 12 GB of DDR3 memory.
• An AVA Direct system running a 3.33 GHX Core i7-980X, overclocked to 4.5 GHz, with 12 GB of DDR 3 memory.
• An older Gateway FX with a 2.5 GH Intel Core2 Quad 9300, with 4GB of DDR2 memory; for comparison purposes.

Most of the people who overclock systems do it for gaming, not for running huge spreadsheets, because heavy spreadsheet users typically want corporate support, but it does work.

Here are my results:

 

There's no question that all the six core processors did better than the four-core one, and in general, the Core i7 outperforms the Phenom II X6. But the magnitude of that difference varies tremendously depending on the type of calculation. Monte Carlo simulations in particular took great advantage of the Core i7's six core, 12 threaded capabilities; and certain calculations within a Pivot Table also were much faster . But in other Pivot Tablet operations or when running a very large real-world spreadsheet that includes a big data table -- one that often takes hours to run on older systems -- the difference wasn't as large, though the Core i7 systems were still faster. It looks like most of the time, the data table only uses a maximum of four threads.

As I've said before, this points out the importance in the way that applications, and just plain models, are written in this new parallel computing envionrment. Some tasks easily take advantage of multiple cores and threads. Others can be rewritten to be more parallel. But many don't, and instead depend mostly on single-threaded performance.

And, of course, there's a huge difference in prices among these CPUs. AMD's list price for the 2.8 GHz Phenom II 1055T is just $199; and the 3.2GHz "Black Edition" 1090T is $295. Intel's list price for its six-core Core i7 processors are much higher, with the 3.2 GHz 970 at $885 and the 3.3GHz 980X is $999. Of course, Intel also offers four-core processors for much less, as does AMD.

 Overall, you'll get better performance from the Intel line, but if you want the best performance at $199, the Phenom II 1055T is your best bet.

Here are ExtremeTech's reviews of the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition,  Intel Core i7-970, and Intel Core i7-980X.