.xlsx
loads 4 times longer than .xlsb
and saves 2 times longer and has 1.5 times a bigger file. I tested this on a generated worksheet with 10'000 rows * 1'000 columns = 10'000'000 (10^7) cells of simple chained =…+1
formulas:
╭──────────────╥────────┬────────╮
│ ║ .xlsx │ .xlsb │
╞══════════════╬════════╪════════╡
│ loading time ║ 165s │ 43s │
├──────────────╫────────┼────────┤
│ saving time ║ 115s │ 61s │
├──────────────╫────────┼────────┤
│ file size ║ 91 MB │ 65 MB │
╰──────────────╨────────┴────────╯
(Hardware: Core2Duo 2.3 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 5.400 rpm SATA II HD; Windows 7, under somewhat heavy load from other processes.)
Beside this, there should be no differences. More precisely,
both formats support exactly the same feature set
cites this blog post from 2006-08-29. So maybe the info that .xlsb
does not support Ribbon code is newer than the upper citation, but I figure that forum source of yours is just wrong. When cracking open the binary file, it seems to condensedly mimic the OOXML file structure 1-to-1: Blog article from 2006-08-07
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…