Desktop or Workstation?

[Financial-Modeller]

A question for the IT experts. I use Office on Windows as many do, but Excel in particular, doing a lot of simulations / repetitive processing (c. one hour every day purely processing) using relatively high-spec laptops.

I'm considering buying a desktop computer and am unsure whether a workstation would be a better buy?

I believe that a workstation (e.g. Dell Precision) should be more reliable, with better power supply, cooling etc than a desktop (e.g. Dell Optiplex)

For my usage, will there be any advantage?

nb I know workstations cost more and don't mind paying more for discernably better kit but don't want to waste money on features that I will not benefit from.
nb I don't have any affiliation to Dell and happy to buy any brand, just looking at their website for examples.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

pretty much all your believes for that are wrong.

Not much difference in regards to desktop and business line up. It is more about SLA and parts being longer available than better design, maybe some more testing for drivers.

Dell is a bit wild on workstations sometimes.

I would argue a Intel Xeon Cpu will do better for you. It can put out a punch hard but also clock low. A good design to save as much power as possible but having max processing power.

Xeons are dev. for data centres so low power is a must during idle.


My recommendation would be a refurb:

HP Z4 G4 Xeon Workstation with following specs about £600 incl. VAT used:

1 x Intel Xeon W-2135 - 6-Core 12-Threads 3.70GHz (4.50GHz Boost, 8.25MB Cache, 140W TDP)
8 x 8GB - DDR4 2666MHz (PC4-21300, 2Rx8)
1 x 256GB - NVMe SSD - Major Brand - New
1 x nVidia GeForce 640 GT - 1GB GDDR5 (DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort)

https://www.bargainhardware.co.uk/hp-z4-g4-twr-configure-to-order

Those G4 bad boys are build to last and well cooled. Don't go stingy on Ram.

64Gb is min I would say these days plus it's dirt cheap anyway, screw it 128GB for the Win. Excel will thank you.

I picked a low end GPU as you need raw processing cpu power with 6 cores so OS will use 2 and excle jas 4 cores at 4.5GHz nice and fast. A better cpu will only increase power consumption and costs and excel cant use GPU power.

 

[Deleted member 325090]

Can't remember the last time I had any reliability issues with a desktop, but I tend not to buy branded desktops and usually build my own. Laptops I've not had many issues with either, and I've used both workstations and consumer grade stuff.

Personally, if portability isn't an issue, I'd go with a desktop. You'll probably get far more for your money.

But before deciding what spec to buy, look for bottlenecks in your current setup. Check for memory & CPU usage. I'm not sure, but I believe Excel uses a single core for most things so if you're CPU bound you might be better served getting something with a higher clock speed, than something with lots of cores.

I tend to do a lot of software compilation, so the cores are more helpful in my case.

 

[forevergroup]

Several elements to answer in your question.

Precision will tend to have better power supplies, but these have more utility for discrete graphics cards which are not particularly relevant to Excel.

Likewise they may have better cooling to deal with being worked harder, which can affect thermal throttling of components under load, but that’s difficult to quantify.

Both can be purchased with ProSupport warranties so no appreciable difference in support. Actually in the laptop space we’ve seen far more reliability issues with Precision than Latitude.

Xeon server/workstation processors tend to be more prevalent in Precision vs. I7 in Optiplex. The differences can be subtle (Xeon may have more cores vs lower clock speed). The best way to check is to compare the exact CPU models using Intel ARK to see cores/speeds/age.

Note that the Precision models seem to have longer lifecycles from what I’ve seen, so you may be comparing a newer generation i7 vs a Xeon that is based on older tech/fab.

In short, for a predominantly CPU-bound workload like excel, that benefits more from grunt clock speed than maxing cores, I would suggest going 16GB RAN / 512GB nvme SSD with a latest-gen Optiplex and getting the best/fastest i7 CPU you can find. Go for a mini tower at least rather than small form factor to ensure you’ve got reasonable power/cooling. Get a 5 year ProSupport on-site warranty to maximise uptime/value.

I can’t see anything within your intended workload that would necessitate a Precision workstation. I would suggest saving your money.

Actually by far the greatest performance benefit you’re likely to see is moving away from laptop. Those tend to have lower frequency processors, power, and thermal constraints - and that will all be limiting single thread performance and throttling your Excel clout.

 

[gpietersz]

I agree with @Nico Albrecht but would add that with large amounts of RAM it is worth getting ECC (error correcting) RAM. It really ought to be standard, but market segmentation.

I have an older machine than that (also bought used) with a similar (six core) but slower Xeon and 16Gb. I replaced the HDD with an SSD and the Nvidia Graphics can with an AMD one and I am happy with it.

I think the question is what is the spec of what you have at the moment, and what are its shortcomings?

 

[Nico Albrecht]

'm not sure, but I believe Excel uses a single core

Excel uses as many as you have cpu cores, it scales quite nicely with cores depending what you do in excel and how it was scripted.

16GB RAN

It's 2022 not 2010 anymore. Ram makes such a huge difference for such a low price you pay. The more the better. Who would buy a work horse PC in 2022 with only 16GB ram.

Precision will tend to have better power supplies

and also a complete custom power connector which ties you into Dells eco system

and that will all be limiting single thread performance and throttling your Excel clout.

Excel can be heavily optimized for multiple thread operations. Finical models in excel can become very complex with live data feeds

RAM it is worth getting ECC (error correcting) RAM.

I agree the G4 machine I recommend has DDR 4 ECC by default. ECC is the king for complex calculations.


The bottleneck with be the clock speed and ram on his followed by storage. Whoever build his excel baby will further advise how well it scales on cpu cores to what point


See it that way rather overbuild a bit and have spare resources. Worst case run a VM on it too and RDC into it from a slow PC to do some work.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

i7 vs a Xeon

Xeon it is any time of the day. Any decent app will love the extra L2 and larger L3 caches.

 

[DontAsk]

ECC is the king for complex calculations.

ECC makes no difference to performance.

 

[forevergroup]

Excel uses as many as you have cpu cores, it scales quite nicely with cores depending what you do in excel and how it was scripted.

I recall recommending an i7 for this reason. Excel is, however, primarily a workload that responds to single threaded grunt.

A modern i7 covers both bases well, likely far better than the 2017 release Xeon you recommended in your original post, which in turn was based on Skylake architecture from 2015. ?

It's 2022 not 2010 anymore. Ram makes such a huge difference for such a low price you pay. The more the better. Who would buy a work horse PC in 2022 with only 16GB ram.More than 16GB RAM makes no difference in his intended workload

No performance benefit foreseeable for more than 16GB RAM for his intended workload. Most specifically more than 16GB of RAM is likely to take him out of most of the pre-built Optiplex range into BTO (Built To Order) territory which is adding cost for no conceivable benefit at this point.

and also a complete custom power connector which ties you into Dells eco system

He asked for Optiplex vs Precision.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course, but arguing with a Dell partner using conjecture rather than hardware knowledge isn’t helpful to OP. Certainly the phrase ‘more RAM the better’ has to win an award for worst possible advice given the criteria. 4 vs 8 vs 16 is one thing but I have to wonder where a recommendation for 64GB alongside a 2015 architecture processor comes from.

 

[Financial-Modeller]

Many thanks for all the information and guidance - and as a relative luddite its interesting to see the arguments for and against various aspects.

I'll do some more research, but really like the idea of the supplier linked where one can build up a computer.

...I think the question is what is the spec of what you have at the moment, and what are its shortcomings?

Slightly unusual in that I use a couple of reasonable laptops (2016 i7, 12GB, SSD, etc running Win10 with 64-bit Excel) but have now taken a permanent desk in an office. and read elsewhere that desktop architecture is better than mobile laptop architecture - also confirmed here. I'll still take a laptop to client sites.

There's a lot of simulations that take a few minutes at a time, and running them faster would be useful. The obvious suggestion is to use something other than Excel but I've been around that loop and have decided to stick with Excel.

So its not really shortcomings in the conventional sense, more an opportunity to change - and obviously keen to capture any improvement. That's why I mentioned that whilst budget isn't limited to a specific number, I'm not too concerned about the cost of good kit that will do the job well and last a while, but don't see the need to pay for features that will not provide a benefit.

 

[gpietersz]

In general you will get a lot more for the same money with a desktop than a laptop, and they are easier to upgrade and easier to fix. Top end desktops are a lot more powerful because they are a lot less constrained by power requirements and heat dissipation requirements

My desktop is old but I have upgraded it - I have added two SSDs (it came with a single HHD) and replaced the graphics card so far.

In your case I would suggest checking whether your simulations are using multiple cores/hyperthreads. I do not know Windows so I have no idea whether there is something built in that will let you see core/hyperthread usage or whether you need to install some utility to do it,

ECC makes no difference to performance.

Most people want the results to be accurate though.

The obvious suggestion is to use something other than Excel but I've been around that loop and have decided to stick with Excel.

For many things alternatives, particularly specialist numerical software, is not just faster, its more reliable.

Some years ago someone founds bugs in some stats functions in several spreadsheet applications. Similar bugs were not present any stats/numerical software tested at all.

Of the affected spreadsheets, Gnumeric immediately, OpenOffice (this was before LibreOffice if I remember correctly) after months, Excel had not been fixed when I last read about it some years later.

Of course spreadsheets have the advantages in terms of already knowing them, and widespread use. At least in this case you are using Excel for modelling rather than as a database or a platform to build applications ?.

 

[Hooble]

ECC makes no difference to performance.

ECC really has uses in a datacenter environment where the compute needs that kind detection and correction. In terms of desktop devices or laptops its not really taken off, it costs more and you wont notice the difference day to day.

 

[DontAsk]

Deleted, posted in wrong forum.

 

[gpietersz]

ECC really has uses in a datacenter environment where the compute needs that kind detection and correction. In terms of desktop devices or laptops its not really taken off, it costs more and you wont notice the difference day to day.

You may not notice the difference.

You will get either unexplained crashes or silently corrupted data. It will not be very often so if you can tolerate a bit of bad data this may be acceptable.

ECC is also more secure against Rowhammer type attacks.

The reason is that it has not taken off, is because Intel does not support it in consumer CPUs to get people running servers to buy server CPUs for reliability.

The more memory you have, and the smaller the semiconductors used the more likely you are to get RAM errors.

Linus Torvalds On The Importance Of ECC RAM, Calls Out Intel's "Bad Policies" Over ECC - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

Why don’t PCs use error correcting RAM? “Because Intel,” says Linus

Artificial market segmentation may have suppressed demand for ECC in desktops.

arstechnica.com

There was another link I found cannot post here because the URL contains a bad word.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

You may not notice the difference

Good link and explanation https://www.infoworld.com/article/2609043/elevation-plays-a-role-in-memory-error-rates.html

It matters a lot. One of the reasons why I would never go near an amd cpu for serious stuff. There is a reason super computers won't use amd and prefer Intel or some arm custom solutions.

Ecc is very important for anybody serious about the integrity of data specifically on long run work projects

 

[Kerwin]

Good link and explanation https://www.infoworld.com/article/2609043/elevation-plays-a-role-in-memory-error-rates.html

It matters a lot. One of the reasons why I would never go near an amd cpu for serious stuff.

Why? AMD supports ECC RAM on their EPYC CPUs (their equivalent to Xeon) and, in fact, supports ECC on some of their high-end home user CPUs. Which is more than Intel does.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

Why? AMD supports ECC RAM on their EPYC CPUs (their equivalent to Xeon) and, in fact, supports ECC on some of their high-end home user CPUs. Which is more than Intel does.

Google it why. In the meantime ...There's a reason 90 percent of servers use intel for CPUs and nvidia for gpus for render farms. It just works. Set and leave with insane longevity.

AMD CPUs have too many issues, they are great for gaming and some other low priority stuff where a dropped frame or image doesn't matter.

OP as to run calculations, you want stable tech you build on Intel CPU. Ecc is always a good and must in Mission critical apps

 

[Kerwin]

Google it why. In the meantime ...There's a reason 90 percent of servers use intel for CPUs and nvidia for gpus for render farms. It just works. Set and leave with insane longevity.

AMD CPUs have too many issues, they are great for gaming and some other low priority stuff where a dropped frame or image doesn't matter.

OP as to run calculations, you want stable tech you build on Intel CPU. Ecc is always a good and must in Mission critical apps

I'm not sure who you have experience with because many VPS hosts use EPYC CPUs in their fleet.

I'm not even sure what I am meant to be Googling. Most of the topics on AMD are very favourable due to their high CPU density compared with Intel.

 

[Kerwin]

Google it why. In the meantime ...There's a reason 90 percent of servers use intel for CPUs and nvidia for gpus for render farms. It just works. Set and leave with insane longevity.

AMD CPUs have too many issues, they are great for gaming and some other low priority stuff where a dropped frame or image doesn't matter.

OP as to run calculations, you want stable tech you build on Intel CPU. Ecc is always a good and must in Mission critical apps

I looked into this and think I know what you are talking about now.

According to what I have read, some AMD CPUs that are not EPYC only unofficially support ECC and finding out if they support ECC is a bit of a pain. Their EPYC line of CPUs all officially support ECC.

Therefore I see no difference with Intel. Intel only supports ECC on their Xeon line, and AMD only supports ECC on their EPYC line. There is no difference between the two other than you get ECC support "free" on AMD Pro CPUs if you do a little research and EPYC CPUs, so you are better off going AMD compared with Intel.

 

[mikeGary]

A question for the IT experts. I use Office on Windows as many do, but Excel in particular, doing a lot of simulations / repetitive processing (c. one hour every day purely processing) using relatively high-spec laptops.

I'm considering buying a desktop computer and am unsure whether a workstation would be a better buy?

I believe that a workstation (e.g. Dell Precision) should be more reliable, with better power supply, cooling etc than a desktop (e.g. Dell Optiplex)

For my usage, will there be any advantage?

nb I know workstations cost more and don't mind paying more for discernably better kit but don't want to waste money on features that I will not benefit from.
nb I don't have any affiliation to Dell and happy to buy any brand, just looking at their website for examples.

Thanks in advance.

By the look of your work as you said (Excel), I very much doubt you would need to buy a Workstation or server ish desktop. just stay with a high spec desktop with at least 16GB RAM would do you just fine!