Mendip Data Systems

Database applications for businesses and schools


Timer Comparison Tests

Return to Home Page

This is a companion article to the various Speed Comparison Tests elsewhere on this website.


Over the years, I have used various functions to measure time intervals including: Timer, GetSystemTime, GetTickCount.


Each of these can give times to millisecond precision though I normally round to 2 d.p. (centiseconds).

This is because each function is based on the system clock which is normally updated 64 times per second – approximately every 0.0156 seconds


When I started my series of speed comparison tests, I mainly used the GetSystemTime function.

However, some occasional inconsistencies led me to reconsider using the very simple Timer function.


Recently I was alerted to the timeGetTime API by Utter Access member ADezii with these comments taken from the Access 2000 Developers Handbook

pg 1135-1136:

If you're interested in measuring elapsed times in your Access Application, you're much better off using the timeGetTime() API Function instead of the Timer() VBA Function. There are 4 major reasons for this decision:

1.  timeGetTime() is more accurate. The Timer() Function measure time in 'seconds' since Midnight in a single-precision floating-point value, and

    is not terribly accurate. timeGetTime() returns the number of 'milliseconds' that have elapsed since Windows has started and is very accurate.

2.  timeGetTime() runs longer without 'rolling over'. Timer() rolls over every 24 hours. timeGetTime() keeps on ticking for up to 49 days before it

    resets the returned tick count to 0.

3.  Calling timeGetTime() is significantly faster than calling Timer().

4.  Calling timeGetTime() is no more complex than calling Timer(), once you've included the proper API declaration


Part of this comment is no longer accurate in that the Timer function can measure to milliseconds (perhaps not the case in the past?)

However, as I had never used the timeGetTime API, I decided to compare the results obtained using each of the methods using two simple tests:

A)  Looping through a simple square root calculation repeatedly (20000000 times)

B)   Measuring the time interval after a specified time delay setup using the Sleep API (1.575 s)


I also added two more items to the timer comparison tests - Stopwatch class (again based on the system timer) and a High Resolution Timer (which has a resolution of 1 microsecond or less). Many thanks to ADezii for this additional code


Here is a quick summary of the 6 methods used in these tests:


•    Timer VBA – number of seconds since midnight but to millisecond resolution


•    GetSystemTime API – current system date and time expressed in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)


•    timeGetTime API – number of milliseconds that have elapsed since the system was started (up to 49.7 days)


•    GetTickCount API – same calculation as timeGetTime but using a different API


•    Stopwatch class API - a set of methods and properties to accurately measure elapsed time.


•    High Resolution Timer API – able to measure to less than one microsecond resolution


Other timer methods also exist that have not been used here. For example:


•    Multimedia Timer - used to schedule periodic timer events for multimedia applications


•    timeGetSystemTime API – time elapsed in milliseconds since the system was started so very similar to timeGetTime API



Obviously, as with any timer tests, other factors such as background windows processes, and overall CPU load will lead to some natural variation.

To minimise the effects of those, I avoided running any other applications at the same time and ran each test 10 times.

Furthermore, the test order was randomised each time ... just in case.


The average times were calculated along with the minimum/maximum times and standard deviation for each test.

As most of the methods are based on the system clock, I expected the results to be similar in each case.

However, it seemed reasonable that certain functions would be more efficient to process


For these tests, the main requirement is certainly NOT to determine which gives the smallest time.

Here the aim is to achieve consistency so that repeated tests should provide a small standard deviation



Colin Riddington      Mendip Data Systems        05/11/2018

Return to Top
* Required

To provide feedback on this article, please enter your name, e-mail address and company (optional) below, add your comment and press the submit button. Thanks

Return to Access Articles

I would be grateful for any feedback on this article including details of any errors or omissions

Difficulty level :   Moderate

1.  Test Results

These are the average results for test A – calculation loop (old desktop PC with 32-bit Access & 4GB RAM):

Click any image to view a larger version

TimerTestResults_A_Desktop TimerTestResults_A_Laptop

As expected, the average times for each method were mostly similar except for the Timer method which gave noticeably larger values

than all other methods.

The Timer method also had the least variation and GetTickCount the most, but the variation was small for each of the methods


For comparison, I repeated the tests on a laptop with 64-bit Access & 8GB RAM:

As you would expect, each of the times are faster. The variation was again fairly small for each method.

Once again, the Timer method had least variation but, on this workstation, its average time was fastest!

Perhaps surprisingly, the High Resolution Timer and Stopwatch methods had the largest variation


Finally, I used a Windows tablet with 2GB RAM.

Clearly, with that specification its only just adequate for running Access and struggles with any complex processing.

TimerTestResults_A_Tablet TimerTestResults_B_Desktop

The times were inevitably a LOT slower but each method gave similar average times

In this case, TimeGetTime and GetTickCount were most consistent whereas GetSystemTime and Stopwatch had the largest variation


Overall, there was little to distinguish any of the methods on any of the workstations tested


The second set of tests were done with a specified time delay of 1.575s.

For these tests, we would expect each value to be slightly larger than the time delay to allow for processing the timer functions.

There should also be less variation between the different PCs


These are the average results for test B – on the desktop PC with 4GB RAM:

The High Resolution Timer was the most consistent and had smaller times than the other methods suggesting it may be the fastest to process time values. The GetTickCount method had the largest variation

All the other functions were similar both in terms of variation and average times obtained.

There were a couple of ‘impossible’ values less than 1.575 seconds for both GetTickCount & Timer methods.


Here are the average results using the laptop with 8GB RAM:

TimerTestResults_B_Laptop TimerTestResults_B_Tablet

Similar results once again with the High Resolution Timer being most consistent and with the fastest times.

Once again, the GetTickCount method had the largest variation

The other methods were broadly comparable both in terms of variation and average times obtained.


The results using the 2GB tablet were :

Once again, GetTickCount produced the largest variation.

In this test Stopwatch class, timeGetTime and the High Resolution Timer were all extremely consistent.


Three of the methods had at least one ‘impossible’ result less than the time delay of 1.575 s

2.  Conclusions

Overall, I would suggest that all methods are reasonably reliable with minimal variation.

Two of the simplest methods (Timer and timeGetTime) were just as consistent and at times better than the other approaches


Stopwatch class works well but requires additional code compared to the Timer or TimeGetTime methods

GetTickCount is satisfactory but perhaps not as reliable as other methods

GetSystemTime uses a combination of the Timer function & GetSystemTime API. As it is no better than other methods, using a combined approach such as this, is probably not the best solution.


The high resolution timer operates with a level of precision far greater than is needed for speed comparison tests.

However, the standard deviation is far smaller than using the other methods which seems to make it more reliable in my view. The second test using a specified time delay also seems to indicate the test itself runs faster so is likely to be closer to the actual time taken as distinct from that measured.


Even so, for most of the tests, the variation between methods wasn’t significant enough to make any of the approaches stand out as a clear ‘winner’. As a result, I suggest using either Timer or TimeGetTime unless you really need more precision than milliseconds


Bearing in mind that the Timer function is based on the time elapsed since midnight whereas timeGetTime runs for 49 days before resetting, timeGetTime should be used if the timing tests are likely to cross midnight or last longer than 24 hours.


However, for smaller time intervals on a reasonably powerful PC, I don’t think there is much advantage in one method compared to the other.

In any case, the code based on the Timer function allows for a ‘round midnight’ error



NOTE: there are other methods that I haven’t yet tested successfully including the multimedia timer.

3.  Using the test application

The main form allows you to run each test individually or to run all tests in turn.

If you choose the latter the test order will be randomised each time.

TimerMainForm TimerMainForm2

The buttons at the bottom of the form allow you to save or view the results, clear the recorded times or cancel the tests.


You can also view the code used for each test by selecting from the combo box:

Click the System Info button to obtain information about your workstation. This can be useful for benchmarking. 

The data collection will take a few seconds with data mostly obtained using WMI.


Clicking View Results on the main form takes you to the Results form


The lower part of the form shows the average results discussed earlier in this document.

The top part shows the individual results for each test run.

You can filter these for an individual test type if you wish.

Click the View Crosstab button to view the results for each test run in crosstab format:


Click the View Summary button to view summary reports with a chart. For example:


4.  Clear existing data

To remove all existing data and start afresh, run 3 queries: qryEmptySpeedTests / qryEmptySysInfo / qryClearComputerInfo

5.   Useful link

After completing these tests, I found the following quote in an article at Stackoverflow:


Timer(), GetTickCount and timeGetTime() are derived from a calibrated hardware clock. Resolution is not great, they are driven by the clock tick interrupt which ticks by default 64 times per second or once every 15.625 msec. You can use timeBeginPeriod() to drive that down to 1.0 msec.

Accuracy is very good, the clock is calibrated from a NTP server, you can usually count on it not being off more than a second over a month.


The high resolution timer is based on the Query Performance Counter API and has a much higher resolution, always better than one microsecond and as little as half a nanosecond on some machines. It however has poor accuracy, the clock source is a frequency picked up from the chipset somewhere. It is not calibrated and has typical electronic tolerances. Use it only to time short intervals.


Latency is the most important factor when you deal with timing. You have no use for a highly accurate timing source if you can't read it fast enough. That's always an issue when you run code in user mode on a protected mode operating system which always has code that runs with higher priority than your code. Device drivers are trouble-makers, video and audio drivers in particular. Your code is also subjected to being swapped out of RAM, requiring a page-fault to get loaded back. On a heavily loaded machine, not being able to run your code for hundreds of milliseconds is not unusual. You'll need to factor this failure mode into your design

Click to download:

Timer Comparison Tests PDF (extended version of this article including timing code)     Approx 0.6 MB

Timer Comparison Tests v1.6  ACCDB file             Approx 2 MB  (zipped)