excel 2010 (ryzen 7 pro 4750g vs ryzen 5 3500x)

[Sid2020]

Hi Guys,

 

Could you help me figure out this scenario.

I have an excel file with macros in it (size 11MB) that i run in 2 desktop pc's.

1) ryzen 5 3500X Game boost enabled, B450 tomahawk max, 32GB RAM 3200mhz

2) ryzen 7 pro 4750g, b550 tomahawk, 16GB 2400mhz

 

the result is opposite of what I expected. The ryzen 7 pro 4750g is slower by almost 50% ( 12 mins vs 8 mins). I haven't figured out why. both are excel 2010 32bit and run in maximum threads (16 vs 6). 

so far what i have done are:

1. disable game boost in the ryzen 3500x pc to see if that had much impact. the result is not much, just around 1 min.

2. equal both ram to 2400mhz. not much impact either.

 

Thanks in advance. 

[BizzWhacken]

sup brotha, from what i have experienced with excel, it usually is ram heavy and needs a lot of it. so i have had several work rigs, and what i've found is that with excel you need more gb of ram then anything else. This is because it eats up a  ton of space because of calculations, sizes, so on. try to switch the ram sticks in the computers and see what i mean. I currently have 32 gigs at my office computer and i run excel sheets legit constantly and its pretty fast. but on my home office computer i have 64 gigs and thats blazing fast. on my lap top that has the new ryzen 5 processors but only 8 gigs of ram, its like a turtle crawling up hill. hope that helps. 

[CustomEnchants]

5 hours ago, Sid2020 said:

Hi Guys,

 

Could you help me figure out this scenario.

I have an excel file with macros in it (size 11MB) that i run in 2 desktop pc's.

1) ryzen 5 3500X Game boost enabled, B450 tomahawk max, 32GB RAM 3200mhz

2) ryzen 7 pro 4750g, b550 tomahawk, 16GB 2400mhz

 

the result is opposite of what I expected. The ryzen 7 pro 4750g is slower by almost 50% ( 12 mins vs 8 mins). I haven't figured out why. both are excel 2010 32bit and run in maximum threads (16 vs 6). 

so far what i have done are:

1. disable game boost in the ryzen 3500x pc to see if that had much impact. the result is not much, just around 1 min.

2. equal both ram to 2400mhz. not much impact either.

 

Thanks in advance. 

I believe the ram speed can be the problem I suppose.

[Selle]

32bit Excel is limited to 2GB ram, for best preformance with big excel sheets you should upgrade to 64bit version

[Sid2020]

13 hours ago, BizzWhacken said:

sup brotha, from what i have experienced with excel, it usually is ram heavy and needs a lot of it. so i have had several work rigs, and what i've found is that with excel you need more gb of ram then anything else. This is because it eats up a  ton of space because of calculations, sizes, so on. try to switch the ram sticks in the computers and see what i mean. I currently have 32 gigs at my office computer and i run excel sheets legit constantly and its pretty fast. but on my home office computer i have 64 gigs and thats blazing fast. on my lap top that has the new ryzen 5 processors but only 8 gigs of ram, its like a turtle crawling up hill. hope that helps. 

Hi Bizz!. Thanks for the suggestion I'll try this later when my wife is not using the other PC. My initial thought is maybe this will work on a 64bit excel. But I'll try this and I'll let you know the results. I think i also have heard before that excel is ram heavy but i did not think of it before i consulted here. I remembered it only until you mentioned it, so hopefully that solves it.

[Sid2020]

8 hours ago, CustomEnchants said:

I believe the ram speed can be the problem I suppose.

Hi Custom, thanks for the feedback.

is it ram speed or ram size? I already tried making them equal to 2400 mhz but it did not have much difference. Maybe ram size like bizz said?

[Sid2020]

5 hours ago, Selle said:

32bit Excel is limited to 2GB ram, for best preformance with big excel sheets you should upgrade to 64bit version

Hi Selle. Thanks for the suggestion. I will try that as well. Will let you know the results.

Thanks!

[Sid2020]

Yoh! I tried some test runs but the RAM size did not seem to matter. What did help (in order of significance) is the #of multi threads used by excel and the RAM speed.

1. First I established a new baseline (to shorten my test runs). it is now 4.9 minutes (Ryzen 7 4750g) vs 3.4 mins (Ryzen 5 3500x).

2. When I switched the RAM's, the results are almost identical (assuming same speed and same # of multi thread enabled). this led me to conclude that RAM size did not matter.

3. But when I decreased the # of multi threads used by excel all the way down to 6, it improved from from 4.9 to 3.91 minutes. the magic number seem to be 6 threads. When i decreased further to 4 it would not have the same effect anymore. I don't know why this is the behavior of excel. It seems using 6 threads is the most efficient.

4. The RAM speed also helped a little bit. but not as significant. when I tested at 3200mhz it improved further down to 3.73 mins.

5. I noticed that the amount of memory used by excel when I run the files is just around 200MB which is not significant to cause a bottleneck for a 16GB RAM size. I think this also means that upgrading to 64bit excel would not matter also (although I think I plan to upgrade anyway just in case I encounter larger files using larger RAM size).

6. But there is still more I don't understand. Using the same RAM parameters (3200Mhz) and same # of logical cores enabled in excel (6), it is now 3.73 mins (Ryzen 7 4750g) vs 3.42 mins (Ryzen 5 3500X). Why is the ryzen 7 still slower? Ryzen 4750g boosts up to 4.4ghz while ryzen 5 3500x with game mode enabled is only up to 4.2ghz.

 

Could be it be because?

1. the two CPU's are of different generations/architecture, so its not that apples-to-apples?

2. they have different way of using of boosts?

3. they have different cache. Ryzen 7 4750g has only 8MB of L3 cache, while ryzen 5 3500x has 32MB L3 cache. I did notice that ryzen 5 3500x is always using less than RAM size than 4750g. around 3-5 MB. less memory swapping?

 

Thanks bros. sorry for the lengthy post and the image.

 

 

 

@BizzWhacken @CustomEnchants@Selle

[jaslion]

Ok so there is a funny thing with 2010. Most people had quad cores back then (without hyperthreading) and thus the software was not at all optimized to handle a lot of threads. I've had this first hand experience on my fx 8320 back then were stuff sometimes ran so bad my old pentium 4 would beat the fx. So I figured out from posts at the time that 2010 kinda freaks out it is also why you don't notice much of a performance drop in speed going from 6 to 4 as you most likely noticed.

 

I got office 2013 soon after from school and well the fx wiped to floor with the p4 :p. It really is just a thing of what systems were common at the time AND that VBA got a pretty big update in office 2013.