Significant differences between Intel and AMD for office tasks?

Which CPUs are better office performers?

  • Intel 13th gen Core (13700k)

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • AMD 7000 series Ryzen (7800X3D)

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • No discernable difference

    Votes: 22 84.6%
  • Total voters
    26
S

SLCPUNK

n00b
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
37
Hey all,

I'm trying to decide between a an AM5 processor and a 13th gen Core processor. I'm eyeing the 7800X3D vs the 13700k. They both seem like they're very good gaming CPUs and should both keep my RX 7800XT fed with no CPU bottleneck. I play an hour or maybe two a day on games like Cyberpunk 2077 or DOTA2 and will start up Starfield at some point. I'd love to get a CPU that handles those games well, and I think either AMD or Intel will be fine on that front.

My deciding factor is office work. I spend most of my time on my computer working with large Excel files, and I would love them to be more responsive (sometimes I enter in some data and wait 30 seconds for the file to finish processing). I'm guessing both Intel and AMD perform more or less the same, but this forum would probably know better than any other if there are any significant performance differences. I've reviewed a lot of benchmarks, but they tend to be very gaming focused or focused on stressful workloads that I'm not capable of translating into office work.

My current setup is a Ryzen 2700 with 16 gigs of RAM. I intend to upgrade the RAM to 64 gigs, regardless of which CPU path I take, so I'm expecting to see a big performance upgrade regardless. I just want whatever CPU will handle office work the best.
 
Excel is awful with large files, not a cpu limitation. When people try to use excel as a database it just falls apart. A lot of office software performance issues stem from not using the correct program(s) for the tasks needed. I do a lot of my work on my home pc which is a i7-6700k with 32gb ram and it is still snappy to this day. My work pc is an i9-12900 with 64gb and for office apps i dont see much difference. My partially worthless two cents for ya :D
 
I can perhaps offer some perspective here. To be clear, there is very little discernable difference and I'm not sure everyone can spot if even when they have the means to truly compare the two. But over the last couple of decades, I've had the opportunity to have both similarly equipped AMD and Intel based systems side by side. I've even been able to go so far as to have duplicate keyboards, mice, monitors, etc. all next to each other. If I used these systems independently, I couldn't tell the difference between them. But if I did the same tasks on both of them one after the other, I could tell a difference. On that front, Intel has always been slightly snappier and more responsive.

But again, that's with both sitting next to each other and performing the same exact tasks on both systems. One after the other. Aside from that, I can't really tell the difference. You really can't go wrong with either but if you are going to split hairs over it, my experience has always favored Intel in this area. Also, this difference is with newer systems. In the past the differences have been more pronounced. AMD has come a long way in this area with its platforms.
 
According to some you might experience jerkyness and stutter when you end up on Intel's efficiency cores by accident.

According to some you might experience jerkyness and stutter because of AMD's separate I/O CCD or because of communication across the compute core CCDs (the 7950x3d has 2).
 
What is your multi-core utilization like while dealing with these large excel files? Does it actually use all 8 cores on your 2700? If it is well multi-threaded, then you should put a 5900X or 5950X into your existing motherboard. Or if you go AM5, go with a 7900X3D or 7950X3D since those have more cores, and a mix of X3D and non-X3D cores. non-X3D cores actually tend to be faster for non-gaming tasks.

I wonder if it's actually a CPU issue at all? I know people who spend all day on Excel using CPUs that are 10-15+ years old and it runs fine. You could drop a 5800X3D into your existing motherboard, see gaming performance that really isn't that far behind the 7800X3D while saving a ton of money, and it would still be a lot faster than your 2700 for non-gaming tasks.
 
uOpt said:
According to some you might experience jerkyness and stutter when you end up on Intel's efficiency cores by accident.

According to some you might experience jerkyness and stutter because of AMD's separate I/O CCD or because of communication across the compute core CCDs (the 7950x3d has 2).
Click to expand...
This is something I've seen since long before Intel had E-cores. That being said, I've got two 12900K's and I've yet to experience that problem. Again, on the AMD side I've not experienced anything really all that noticeable. It's only when you swap back and fourth with the machines side by side that I can tell a difference between them at all. I've got a Ryzen 2700X system and a 3950X system and neither has given me cause for complaints.
 
Dan_D said:
but if you are going to split hairs over it, my experience has always favored Intel in this area. Also, this difference is with newer systems. In the past the differences have been more pronounced. AMD has come a long way in this area with its platforms.
Click to expand...
This. Microsoft and Intel have a long history together, and a deep understanding of each other: Windows, Office, SQL Server; there's a reason that the word "Wintel" came into existence. Thankfully, AMD has reached parity with Intel in recent years.

Both CPUs mentioned will suit you well, but since you mentioned Excel specifically: https://www.anandtech.com/show/18795/the-amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-review-a-simpler-slice-of-v-cache-for-gaming/2

Compared to the 7800X3D, the i5-3600K - in that specific synthetic benchmark! - will provide approximately 10% better performance. But given the big upgrade you're going to make, will it _really_ matter if a task takes 3.3 sec or 3.2 sec? (FWIW, in my experience, Excel has been mainly bound to one single thread and so one would be better buying a CPU that has better single threaded performance.)
 

Attachments

  • 132207.png
    132207.png
    53.7 KB · Views: 0
Thanks for all the helpful replies, everyone. That last graph from Anandtech really helped a lot. Looks like I may even save a little cash and go with a 7700. Thanks again!
 
SLCPUNK said:
Looks like I may even save a little cash and go with a 7700. Thanks again!
Click to expand...
If you can wait a little bit, you might get better value when 14th gen releases soon (this month, I think? Next month?) Either a good i5-14xxx or i7-14xxx or a highly discounted 12th or 13th gen part.
 
No official benchmark, but when my work laptop spools up cores in Excel, I can't help but think that 10 e-cores are letting me down.
 
GDI Lord said:
If you can wait a little bit, you might get better value when 14th gen releases soon (this month, I think? Next month?) Either a good i5-14xxx or i7-14xxx or a highly discounted 12th or 13th gen part.
Click to expand...

I may end up doing that. I have a bias towards Ryzen currently (so many P cores; even if they aren't named that way) and I want to see just how fast their 8000 series is going to be when it comes out. I have a decent budget I can put towards this so if those CPUs end up being the big upgrade youtubers are pointing to I may just end up with a Ryzen 8700.
 
SLCPUNK said:
I may end up doing that. I have a bias towards Ryzen currently (so many P cores; even if they aren't named that way) and I want to see just how fast their 8000 series is going to be when it comes out. I have a decent budget I can put towards this so if those CPUs end up being the big upgrade youtubers are pointing to I may just end up with a Ryzen 8700.
Click to expand...
SLCPUNK said:
My deciding factor is office work
Click to expand...
IMHO you'd be hard pressed to feel a difference between 14th gen and 8xxx series, heck even the current 13th gen and the 7xxx3D series, in office work, again specifically Excel. Get what suits you and your budget. You haven't mentioned what you do with the large files in Excel, if you use PowerPivot/PowerBI, custom VB script, hand-coded macros / functions and the like, so if you wanna be a psycho//[H]ard, it's a bit difficult to really help you really geek out and get that extra 0.0000001%.

FWIW, the engine powering Power Pivot and Power BI is Vertipaq/xVelocity, the same engine used in columnar storage in SQL Server, so maybe you can go do some sleuthing and see which vendor's CPU does better with that. (I bet Intel, given how some other internals seem to prefer the Intel architecture. See also: the https://EightKB.online/ conference and it's past session highlights on youtube e.g. Scaling SQL Server beyond two CPU's - Thomas Grohser [timestamped]
View: https://youtu.be/O3ItyjN2iPA?si=iakfPaQ3ZZHiMC19&t=1554 )

However, if you do use large Excel files, it's gonna be in memory a lot, so faster and more responsive memory might benefit you more than your CPU's grunt. Depending on your budget and what you do in Excel, consider looking for benchmarks reflecting memory bandwidth and speed for your workload since a workstation class CPU might be better, especially since it seems that you use your computer to generate income for yourself.

Intel:
1697482094800.png

AMD:
1697482147521.png
 
Depending on CPU, if you print out the spreadsheet, and try to visually inspect it, the lights may be dimmer or brighter depending upon CPU choice.
 
Jandor said:
Excel in need for more than 128GB. Really ? If you're that on the edge, you need to get a database for your job.
Click to expand...
I know, believe me.

I've also been in the situation where trying to convince business users about that was... Well, it was a process to switch over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top