X64 browsers are all slower than x32 for me!

Discussion in 'hardware' started by ratchet, Oct 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Posts:
    1,912
    I built a PC with an SSD, 8gbs DDR3 1600 RAM and x64 W SP1. I've used all three x64 Firefox alternatives and today tried IE11. Speed-Battle scores are always higher with the x32 versions. Cyberfox used to score over 1100 but for three or more months have only been 900. Same with Palemoon and Waterfox. Firefox is consistently scoring over 1050. IE10 800/900, IE11 600s. Granted, nothing is really noticeable and I really only use Ff but I don't understand it. I thought x64 provided better performance?
     
  2. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,798
    Location:
    Texas
  3. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Posts:
    1,912
  4. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    I think there is actually something else going on here, perhaps with your system - and the fact you had to re-image your system seems to confirm that.

    After doing some Bing Google research, while it is hard to find anything current, there are studies/reviews out there that show the 64-bit versions of all the major browsers (IE, FF, Opera) generally perform better than their 32-bit counterparts in most - not all - but most tasks. But there are many factors that hinder 64-bit browser advantages. These include, among other things, running with less than 4Gb of RAM plus a lack of 64-bit add-ons.

    Here's one example (though for IE9 beta :() but note 64-bit IE, in the words of the author, "pretty much destroys its 32 bit brother."

    Developers have been dragging their feet, kicking, scratching and clawing in their resistance to support 64-bit. This is because most 32-bit software runs fine in a 64-bit environment so why have 2 versions? That twisted logic is really sad because hardware has been 64-bit ready for more than decade. But with 64-bit Windows 7 outselling the 32-bit version user demand for 64-bit versions forced the tide to change. Consequently, we've seen great advances in 64-bit development in all areas, except browser support :(. Still, progress is being made there too. For example, 64-bit Adobe Flash is finally a stable product.

    So I say give it a little more time - keep complaining (squeaky wheel theory) and hopefully soon 32-bit will be a thing of the past - as it should be.
     
  5. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    That 4sysops article is wrong.

    This is completely wrong way round, 64bit runs faster due to addtional cpu features - data is still moved in 8bits on the CPU, x86 or amd64

    Wrong, partly because he is now mixing up addressable memory with the number of bits the CPU can process at a time (you have been for a long time been able to use 64 and 12bit numbers on a x86 machine), the CPU can process 64bits of data in the same amount of cycle as 32bits, due to using registers that can hold 64bits. Working with large integers will be a lot faster.


    64 bit apps should run SOME amount faster, not because of the increase in addressable memory, but the additional registers, SIMD instructions and ability to move data around memory more efficiently. This is due to architectural differences not simple increasing the word size from 32bit to 64bit.

    I see 20% performance improvement in transcoding video using 32bit vs 64bit versions of handbrake.

    Will boil down to how well the compiler used will make use of the additional CPU features.

    Cheers, Nick
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
  6. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,272
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Yeah, besides that article being 4 years old and released before the official W7 release date (meaning 64-bit support has improved a lot since then), there were some other things in the article (and following comments) I felt were not entirely true too. For example, in a May 9, 2011 reply he said it would take longer for 64-bit programs to load from the hard disk because 64-bit program files tend to be larger. While that is true, and he admits the difference is small in most cases, I just don't agree it is a factor in browser performance. For one, we are likely talking milliseconds. For another, you don't reload the browser for every webpage you download. Plus, 64-bit programs are fatter in part because they include a bunch of 32-bit code to maintain compatibility.

    @ratchet - with 8Gb of RAM running 64-bit W8, you should definitely see some improvement running 64-bit IE vs 32-bit. I note MS just released an Update for Windows 8.1 for x64-based Systems (KB2901549) that is said to improve 64-bit IE11 "reliability".
     
  7. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,798
    Location:
    Texas
  8. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,785
    Location:
    US
    I had it the other way around, I used to have a 64 bit AMD with very little power netbook. The 64 bit browsers were >>>>>> faster than 32 bit counterparts. On my i5 notebook i see little if no difference.
    Something must be wrong with your system if it's the other way around. Try reinstalling OS and downloading official 64 bit browsers. As far as i know there is only 1 right now IE 10 or 11. Opera 64 bit was discontinued and both FF and Chrome don't have 64 bit. I may be wrong thou since I haven't used windows for a few months.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.