nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

How does your Quicken Windows performance compare?

Chris_QPW

From what I have seen the "power" of the machine has very little to do with the performance of Quicken. I'm not really surprised by this since it is mostly a single threaded process and processor speeds for a single core have been about the same for many years (desktops around 4GHz).
People come in and tell how they have these very new/powerful computers, and most of the time my system has better performance than their (mostly because they are having some kind of performance problem which is related to their data file, financial institution, or maybe even their high powered GPU and high resolution screen). But I doubt that any of these systems even when working right will change the performance of Quicken very much.

Anyways I thought I would put in the a couple of systems I have for comparison.

Size of external data file 134MB (no attachments). Below sizes for Quicken data file, plus memory of Dell Latitude below.

Dell Latitude D620 (made in 2006). Memory and changing to a SSD are the only changes to this laptop (no discrete GPU). This is a laptop I just keep around for mostly for testing, just because "I have it".

Processor: Intel Core2 @ 1.66 GHz (dual core)

Memory: 3 GB (max for this system)

Drive: 120 GB SSD (Ok speed, but nothing special)

Display: 1920x120 @100%

Operating System: Windows 10 Pro 32-bit build 2004 (64-bit makes no difference for performance of Quicken)

First start of Quicken: 24 seconds.

Second start of Quicken: 14 seconds

Open investment account first time: 6 seconds

Open the same investment account again: 2 seconds

Enter transaction in investment account: 4 seconds

One Step Update (after entering password/OK, till status dialog drops): 46 seconds

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/ia/6ofkrdw6wjps.png

System I built in 2012. Only differences for Quicken sizes below.

Processor: AMD A10-5800K APU 3.8GHz to 4.2 GHz (quad core)

Memory: 12 GB

Drive: Samsung 512 GB 860 Pro

Display: 1920x120 @100%

Operating System: Windows 10 64-bit build 2004

First start of Quicken: 14 seconds.

Second start of Quicken: 10 seconds

Open investment account first time: 4 seconds

Open the same investment account again: 2 seconds (or less, hard to select and time at the same time)

Enter transaction in investment account: 3 seconds

One Step Update (after entering password/OK, till status dialog drops): 40 seconds

My wife has another system I built that is a bit newer than mine, and that is Intel, but its "Quicken performance" is so close to my main machine that it isn't worth even throwing in the to comparison.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

jrich75

I'll contribute some data from my everyday laptop:

HP Pavilion x360 Convertible

Processor: Intel Core i5 @ 1.60-1.80 GHz (dual core)

Memory: 8 GB (7.83 usable)

Drive: Intel Optane + 932GB HDD

Display: 1920x1080

Operating System: Windows 10 Home ver 1903 64-bit build 2019

First start of Quicken: 9 seconds.

Second start of Quicken: 7 seconds

Open investment account first time: 3 seconds

Open the same investment account again: 1 seconds

Enter transaction in investment account: 3 seconds

One Step Update (after entering password/OK, till status dialog drops): 90-120 seconds

So it's a smaller data file with a lot fewer accounts. However, I have quite a few EWC connected accounts and also about a half dozen e-bills that update.

I'm not sure how the Capital One EWC+ differs from the standard.

So, in general a bit quicker in entering Quicken and investment accounts but the OSU function seems to hesitate several times during the process as well as shifting back and forth between groupings of DC & EWC accounts, resulting in a considerable longer time to complete.

Chris_QPW

@jrfaris Thanks, and very interesting, and about what I would expect. When you look at the start up times and such if one was to look at percentage it would be big difference, but since we are talking about a few seconds, it hardly matters.

When I was using online bills I did notice that they take quite a long time to update.

And on the switching between DC and EWC. From what I have seen DC is always one at a time, and EWC is done in parallel, but there also seems to be a "final process" for the EWC after everything else is done.

Also note that the flow seems to be a bit different with the new QCS connection method for EWC than it was for the old FDS connection method.

Note I just retested my OSU update since I'm now on the QCS and I also have the R27.42 update (in one thread they mentioned a speed up fix was coming for EWC, but don't mention it in this patch, but my times are faster so I don't know if this matters or not).

Time to update 28 seconds.

jrich75

Not that it has much effect on performance but I guess I should mention that my external file size is 120MB. Due in large part to the months of e-bills that have been downloaded (although I do have a variety of check images as well).

The e-bills are always the last to complete but I figure most of the time is just a check status and there is really nothing to update (especially this time of month).

It will be interesting to see if I also have a faster time to update after being pushed to an OCS connection.

Chris_QPW

These days I don't have any attachments in my data file, but from past experience they don't seem to have any affect on the performance because in fact they are not accessed until actually open. The QDF file is actually a compressed file like a ZIP (7-Zip can open it) and the attachments are in a separate folder(s) from the data files that like the "real" _QDF file which is the main database file.

Sherlock

Quicken is single user database application. There's no reason to believe more cores, a faster GPU, or additional memory will improve Quicken's performance unless you're offloading other concurrent activity competing for the resources. Quicken's performance depends on access to a fast CPU and storage.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/sq/7utqhjracvaj.png

2012 build:

Processor: Intel i5-2520M 2.50GHz 2 cores

Memory: 8 GB

Drive: WD7500BPKT-80PK40T0

Display: 1680x1050 Remote Display Adapter

Operating System: Windows 10 Home 64-bit version 2004

First start of Quicken after boot: 12 seconds.

Second start of Quicken: 3 seconds

First file open after boot: 27 seconds

Second file open: 12 seconds

Open investment account first time: 4 seconds

Open the same investment account again: 1 second

Enter transaction in investment account: 3 seconds

One Step Update (after entering password/OK, till status dialog drops): 55 seconds

12 Direct Connect and Download quotes and investment information

@Chris_QPW , What are QCS and FDS connections exactly?
@jrfaris , What is OCS connection?
I would like to know not just what they stand for but the technical details please at your convenience. Thank you both.
(I have remained on R26.23. In general with any system, Quicken, iOS, Windows, firmware etc. I wait a month or so before upgrading)

Chris_QPW

@BK About all that is currently published about QCS and FDS is that QCS is the new system and FDS is the old one and that they are "connection methods" for Express Web Connect accounts. Quicken Inc has promised that a FAQ is being written about it and it will be post in the near future.

I will say right upfront that I don't believe that the FAQ will actually answer all our burning questions. I believe that it will be "marketing hype".

Why do I say that?

If you look at how information about Express Web Connect that they publish and then watch how it works, it doesn't explain all the different "quirks" and such that are seen, at best it is an explanation how it was originally designed, but has morphed into something much different. The information on Express Web Connect says that server downloads daily, but for some financial institutions it can be "real time". And then there is multiple factor authentication and such.

Also QCS isn't "new" is only new to Quicken Windows. Quicken Mac has been on it for years. I remember when that happened, but not being a Mac guy I don't know much details on it, but frankly again I don't think they ever really released the details. That has been a cornerstone of the "Quicken thinking" for all the way back. They seem to believe that Quicken users are to dumb to understand the details or that for some reason they need to keep such details security for security reason or such.

I have also heard conflicting statements about QCS from other SuperUsers and the moderators.

From what I understand the overall goal is to put Quicken Inc into the loop instead of having to hear about problems from the users or Intuit. As in now it being Quicken -> Quicken servers -> Intuit servers -> Financial institution web servers.

And of course generally trying improve this whole system.

jrich75

OCS is my typo. I meant QCS. Sorry
I'm still on FDS and don't plan to change until they Quicken does it for me.

miklk

I have really not encountered any of the big slowdowns being reported in ISU or Investments I suspect a big part of that is by avoiding most of the new features such as Billers, cloud sync, attachments, etc.. In addition to always having clean installations. For me, I haven't noticed much of a difference between systems or between versions in any of my data files which are fairly complex and old.

Sherlock

My wag is QCS is the Quicken Cloud Service. If you are syncing accounts from your file that use the Express Web Connect or Direct Connect connection methods to the Quicken Cloud, QCS is already maintaining credentials to access your account balances and transactions from the financial institutions.

Note: With this migration, Quicken is also changing the Direct Connect connection method to route through QCS supposedly to improve security. This may be used to block access to the Direct Connect servers by programs simulating Quicken.

Chris_QPW

@Sherlock I think that is a very good guess.

On the redirecting of Direct Connect it has already been reported that Discover using Direct Connect is in fact now being routed through the Quicken servers "sort of like VPN". What this means on the financial institution's side is that they only have to allow IP addresses known to be from the Quicken servers, and as such can block any others that "pretend to be Quicken". Which I'm sure their IT group really favors. There is also a few threads on Charles Schwab blocking IP addresses on Direct Connect and people having to get in touch with just the right person to it them unblocked. Sounds like going down the same path.

Makes sense that they are pushing it across the board.

One of the main questions then I hope they answer in the FAQ then are creating is if in fact for Direct Connect this is working like a VPN where their servers know nothing about what is being transmitted, or if they are in fact caching any information like credentials/transactions.

This might very bad for the other personal finances programs (especially the free ones) that have been piggy backing on Quicken/Intuit keeping these service open at the financial institutions.

Sherlock

@Chris_QPW Rather than a VPN, I think it would be more like a reverse proxy. The dependency will add a point of failure to the Direct Connect connection method.

Chris_QPW

@Sherlock yeah it might be like that, I will bet we will never know the details.

BTW when you said QCS => Quicken Cloud Service that was a big face plaint moment for me.

And now the use of QCS will get even more difficult to explain, since that "term" is being used for a number of different things.

Chris_QPW

I have been wondering about something for a bit. In other threads I see that some financial institutions (Charles Schwab for instance) are blocking IP addresses (Direct Connect).

As suggested by @Sherlock if they are going to a reverse proxy, then instead of the financial institution seeing the user's IP address they will instead see one of Quicken Inc's server IP addresses.

This would certainly have an impact on which IP addresses the financial institutions like Charles Schwab is doing (hopefully for the better). Given that instead of having to "unblock" each user's IP (which might change for a laptop) they can instead just have to not block the Quicken Inc server IP addresses.

This might even be "the final plan" that Charles Schwab is working towards.

Pure speculation on my part...

Sherlock

I suspect Quicken will eventually no longer maintain a Password Vault within the Quicken file. Authorization will be based on the authenticated Quicken ID and financial institution credentials maintained within QCS.