Bet Angel - Spreadsheet / Excel chat : Computer configuration

Discussion regarding the spreadsheet functionality of Bet Angel.
Wolf1877
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:59 am

Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:29 am

Kafkaesque wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:15 am
Great stuff, thanks for taking the time! That really did explain, how the specs interact better than anything else, I've come across.
Happy if it helped Kafkaesque. I took a look at the other thread. Obviously a very wide variety of different opinions. Ultimately everyone uses Bet Angel differently and uses different stuff in background. At the end of the day there is no absolute right and wrong answer to the generic question of "what spec of machine is needed to run Bet Angel".

Everyone who has customised their Bet Angel Excel worksheets linked to Guardian will have done different stuff. Everyone who has developed BAF automation scripts will have done different stuff. Some will put excel charts in, some like me will have 70+ worksheets and multiple instances of Bet Angel guardian, some will have used lots of complex embedded excel formula in multiple sheets. Some VBA code will give poor performance. Some will be running a lot of other stuff in addition to Bet Angel and Excel.

As to those who said RAM does not matter, they are partly right. Too much RAM doesnt speed things up but too little RAM will most definitely slow things down significantly.

As to those who said SSDs dont help, they might be right for the way they run their machine if their disk IO or background disk io is only minimal once the machine is booted up and running. Machines have disk io cache buffers which helps to speed up low volume disk io performance. SSDs certainly wont slow anything down though. My experience is such that I wouldnt even consider using a machine without an SSD.

Those who say number of cores is important. Maybe. I'm not exactly sure how the PC architecture distributes the load across individual cores. Usually more cores correlates directly with more overall CPU power as can be seen on https://www.cpubenchmark.net. Is it the number of cores or the overall CPU power that delivers the improved performance?

User avatar
Dallas
Posts: 8744
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:57 pm

Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:48 am

Wolf1877 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:29 am

Those who say number of cores is important. Maybe. I'm not exactly sure how the PC architecture distributes the load across individual cores. Usually more cores correlates directly with more overall CPU power as can be seen on https://www.cpubenchmark.net. Is it the number of cores or the overall CPU power that delivers the improved performance?
Generally, for a CPU, you want to try to find the fastest clock speed over most other things but it does come down to how you intend to use your PC.
ie, given the choice of 2 cores at 3.3GHz and 4 cores at 2.7GHz, I'd choose the dual core if only running Bet Angel.

However, if you've also got a web browser running on the PC, and maybe Excel, and e-mail perhaps etc etc, then extra cores can be useful because Windows will allocate the different processes to the least busy core.

Wolf1877
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:59 am

Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:55 pm

Dallas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:48 am
Generally, for a CPU, you want to try to find the fastest clock speed over most other things but it does come down to how you intend to use your PC.
ie, given the choice of 2 cores at 3.3GHz and 4 cores at 2.7GHz, I'd choose the dual core if only running Bet Angel.

However, if you've also got a web browser running on the PC, and maybe Excel, and e-mail perhaps etc etc, then extra cores can be useful because Windows will allocate the different processes to the least busy core.
Thanks Dallas. Its useful to know about how windows allocates processes to cores. In practice nearly everything is 4 cores these days apart from some high end models with 6 or more.

As regards processing speed I'd still tend to take the CPU thread rating over clock speed. See the image below of some CPU data taken from https://www.cpubenchmark.net for 8th generation intel i7-8700 @ 3.20GHz v 7th generation intel i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz v 8th generation inter i3-8100 @ 3.60GHz.

The single thread speed ratings are as follows. Note the fastest individual thread speed is not the highest clock speed. They would all run Bet Angel great though
i7-8700 @ 3.20GHz - 2628
i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz - 2349
i3-8100 @ 3.60GHz - 2103

NOTE ADDED: I only just noticed that the i7-8700 has a turbo speed of 4.6GHz and the i7-7700 has a turbo speed of 4.2GHz which does seems to fit in with Dallas's theory about GHz being an important factor in processing speed. I'll certainly take further notice of that in future! Thanks Dallas - Peter should give you a pay rise!
CPU-compare.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

arbitrage16
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:27 pm

Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:07 pm

May be highjacking this thread slightly, but hopefully this is relevant for other users. I am looking at a custom build from Punch technology and so far have identified the following machine:

AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 Ghz 4 Core CPU
MSI A320M PRO-VH Plus
Nvidia GTX1050 2GB GPU
16GB DDR4 3000MHz RAM
1TB FireCuda Hybrid-HDD
120GB 2.5" SSD
AMD Wraith Cooler
300W PSU
Gigabyte Wireless AC Bluetooth

I mostly trade in-play, and would appreciate any feedback on the suitability of such a machine. This comes in at the princely sum of £744.76

User avatar
BetScalper
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm

Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:05 pm

arbitrage16 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:07 pm
May be highjacking this thread slightly, but hopefully this is relevant for other users. I am looking at a custom build from Punch technology and so far have identified the following machine:

AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 Ghz 4 Core CPU
MSI A320M PRO-VH Plus
Nvidia GTX1050 2GB GPU
16GB DDR4 3000MHz RAM
1TB FireCuda Hybrid-HDD
120GB 2.5" SSD
AMD Wraith Cooler
300W PSU
Gigabyte Wireless AC Bluetooth

I mostly trade in-play, and would appreciate any feedback on the suitability of such a machine. This comes in at the princely sum of £744.76
I can't speak for others but I wouldn't buy anything that had an AMD chip in it. They caused havoc during my AutoCAD days.

User avatar
Dublin_Flyer
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:39 am

Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:55 pm

I've little experience with AMD so can't comment on that.

I'd go for the 1050ti instead of the 1050 2gb. It's twice the memory for about 30ish quid difference. Also I'd choose a higher wattage PSU too, 300w is pretty much bare minimum in prebuilt pc's these days unless a higher wattage/spec is requested. As a built pc needs a PSU, it's easier to scrimp on these and get the cheapest type in to increase the profit margin rather than go for quality.

arbitrage16
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:27 pm

Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:03 am

Thanks DF, will take your advice on the PSU - they offer the following "Contour 400W High Efficiency ATX PSU" for an extra £6 - is that about right?

on the graphics cards, is an upgrade necessary? The NVidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB is £44 extra, but I'm wondering if that is overkill given I won't be doing any gaming, or even anything particularly intensive on the trading front; it's really only ladder stuff for me.

Appreciate the feedback, ta

Wolf1877
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:59 am

Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:10 am

Just coming back to the relevance of clockspeeds when comparing processor speed as per Dallas's input. I found the following useful info on https://www.arrowcomputers.com.au/page/ ... al-core-i3. I also followed up on the Intel turbo clockspeed feature (as featured the i7-8700 and i7-7700 and other processors). According to wiki basically the turbo GHz speed boost automatically kicks in at times of high demand on the processor but will automatically drop down again if the processor starts getting too hot. I still think that the CPUbenchmark site I linked earlier is the absolute best guide available on CPU speed as it results from users actual speed benchmark tests from a large sample of machines.
Clock speed is the rate at which a processor executes a task and is measured in Gigahertz (GHz). Once, a higher number meant a faster processor, but advances in technology have made the processor chip more efficient so now they do more with less.

For example: An Intel Core i5 running at 3.46 GHz is not faster than an Intel Core i7 running at 3.06 GHz.

Comparing the speed of your old Pentium 4 CPU (an old scale which peaked at 3.4 GHz) with the speed of the current i series CPU’s (the new scale which started at 1.6 GHz) is a bit like comparing the Fahrenheit with Celsius temperature scales. The i series 1.6 GHz CPU runs faster and outperforms the old style Pentium 4 CPU. Hence your new i5 or i7 running at 3.0 GHz plus cannot be compared to any older generation Pentium 4 hardware.

Remember: Don’t compare computers based on clock speed unless they use the same line of processors – such as Intel core i3, i5 or i7.

You may come across Intel’s Turbo Boost Technology while shopping for a new PC. This is one of the many exciting new features the Intel chip has built into core i5 and core i7 processors. It automatically speeds up the processor for a burst of heavy-duty activity when your PC needs extra performance. For example, a core i5 chip rated at a hefty 2.5 GHz can kick up to 3 GHz on demand without stressing the processor or running the risk of overheating.

Post Reply

Return to “Bet Angel - Spreadsheet / Excel chat”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests