Compare Excel 2010 on a Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G versus a Ryzen 5 3500X.
Compare Excel 2010 on a Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G versus a Ryzen 5 3500X.
Hi there,
I see you're trying to understand why your performance differs between the two systems. Let's break it down:
Your Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G runs at 2400MHz, while the Ryzen 5 3500X is boosted to 3200MHz. That jump in clock speed can significantly affect performance, especially for resource-intensive tasks like Excel.
You mentioned both are 32-bit and running at full threads, but the difference in speed is quite large—about half an hour for the slower processor. This suggests the hardware bottleneck might be more pronounced on the older model.
Disabling Game Boost on the 3500X did help, but only slightly. Adjusting RAM speeds didn’t make a big difference either.
It could be related to how the OS or drivers handle different CPU architectures, or perhaps the workload is more strained on the 3500X. Trying a different RAM speed or checking for driver updates might help. Let me know what you try next!
Hey bro, from what I've seen with Excel, it tends to hog a lot of RAM and uses up a lot of space. I've tried different workstations, and what I noticed is that Excel usually demands more memory than any other program. This is mainly because of the heavy calculations and data handling it requires. If you're looking to improve performance, try swapping out the RAM modules in your computer and see how it affects things. Right now I have 32 gigabytes at my office PC, which runs Excel smoothly and quickly. On my home office machine I have 64 gigabytes and it performs exceptionally well. My laptop with the new Ryzen 5 processors but only 8 gigabytes feels like it's moving very slowly. Hope this gives you some insight.
32-bit Excel can only use up to 2GB of memory, for optimal speed with large spreadsheets it's recommended to switch to the 64-bit version
Hi there! Thanks for the idea. I’ll give it a shot later when my wife isn’t using the other PC. I’m hoping it works with a 64-bit Excel version. I’ll let you know what happens. I’ve also heard that Excel uses a lot of RAM, but I didn’t think about it until you brought it up. Hopefully that clears things up!
You're asking about whether the issue is related to RAM speed or size. Since you've already tried matching the frequency to 2400 MHz and it didn't make a big difference, it might be the RAM size that needs adjustment.
Yoh! I ran some test cycles but RAM capacity didn't appear to play a big role. What actually helped, in order of importance, were the number of threads Excel used and the RAM speed. 1. I set up a new reference point to speed up my tests. Now it's about 4.9 minutes (Ryzen 7 4750g) versus 3.4 minutes (Ryzen 5 3500x). 2. Changing the RAM made little difference if speed and thread count stayed similar. This suggested RAM size wasn't crucial. 3. Reducing Excel's threads to six improved things from 4.9 to 3.91 minutes. The optimal number seemed to be six. Going down to four threads stopped that benefit. I'm not sure why Excel behaves this way—six threads appear most efficient. 4. RAM speed also contributed a bit, but not much. At 3200Mhz it got even better to 3.73 minutes. 5. Excel used roughly 200MB of memory while running, which isn't enough to block a 16GB RAM setup. This implies a 64-bit version might not help much either, though I might upgrade just in case. 6. Still puzzling. With the same RAM settings (3200Mhz) and six threads enabled, it's now 3.73 minutes (Ryzen 7 4750g) versus 3.42 minutes (Ryzen 5 3500X). Why is the Ryzen 7 slower? One thought: they're from different generations, so it's not a direct comparison. Another idea: they handle boosts differently. Third, their caches differ—Ryzen 7 has just 8MB L3 while the 5 has 32MB. I've seen the 5 often uses less than RAM, maybe swapping less. Thanks for the detailed post and the images. @BizzWhacken @CustomEnchants @Selle
Back then, most systems had quad-core processors without hyperthreading, which meant software wasn't really built to handle many threads efficiently. I personally experienced this on my FX 8320, where performance issues were common—sometimes it even outperformed my older Pentium 4. From online discussions at the time, I learned that this was partly due to the hardware limitations and the significant updates made to Office in 2013.