Chrome 32bit vs Chrome 64bit

Zhokel · 21 Jul 2015 at 18:36

opethdisciple said:
Just beware, the current limitation with the 64bit version is the lack of 64bit compatible NPAPI plugins. (And possibly more ram usage)

As far as I'm aware that's not a 64bit limitation, that's just chrome in general and once chrome version 45 hits later in the year NPAPI will no longer work at all, https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/6213033?hl=en-GB

Ashley S said:
Gone back to 32bit.
The 64bit was using more RAM than 32bit.

That will be the case with most if not all 64bit vs 32bit pieces of software.

Orcvader · 21 Jul 2015 at 18:59

I thought the 64 bit version was stable for a long while now. Adobe has been offering 64 bit Flash with their 32 bit version for a long time now.

Had no problems using 64 bit here.

kona786 · 21 Jul 2015 at 19:11

opethdisciple said:
It's a bit difficult to find but 64bit version is available from here.

Can you have both 32 + 64bit versions installed at the same time?

opethdisciple · 21 Jul 2015 at 19:36

Ashley S said:
Gone back to 32bit.
The 64bit was using more RAM than 32bit.

I've been reading up a lot today on the technical differences between the two. Yes it uses more RAM, but that's the nature if it being 64bit. Larger address space.

What first piqued my interest is that I read somewhere the 64bit version is less CPU intensive than the 32bit version. But uses more ram.

Rainmaker · 21 Jul 2015 at 19:51

opethdisciple said:
Well I feel compelled to use Chrome as Firefox is unusable on my older Qx9650 PC. CPU spikes upwards of 60-70% on the simplest of websites.

Way smoother experience on Chrome.

Just, I've been using Firefox since 2007 so nothing quite feels like home.

Sounds more like a dodgy profile or extension. I'm running a CPU far weaker and older than yours (an Athlon 64 x2) and Cyberfox x64 is only using 0.2% CPU on idle with three tabs open (Facebook messages, this thread, a heavy forum full of tables). Loading an intensive page spikes CPU to 20% for a second then back to idle, just as you'd expect when any program does some work.

opethdisciple · 21 Jul 2015 at 20:13

Rainmaker said:
Sounds more like a dodgy profile or extension. I'm running a CPU far weaker and older than yours (an Athlon 64 x2) and Cyberfox x64 is only using 0.2% CPU on idle with three tabs open (Facebook messages, this thread, a heavy forum full of tables). Loading an intensive page spikes CPU to 20% for a second then back to idle, just as you'd expect when any program does some work.

Maybe. But to be fair, there is nothing in my profile. Only add on is Flash.

---

On a side note, pleasantly surprised to see that the 64bit version of Chrome is actually version 44. The 32bit version is 43.

Zhokel · 21 Jul 2015 at 20:52

opethdisciple said:
On a side note, pleasantly surprised to see that the 64bit version of Chrome is actually version 44. The 32bit version is 43.

To be fair, 44 came out a few hours ago

opethdisciple · 21 Jul 2015 at 21:43

Zhokel said:
To be fair, 44 came out a few hours ago

Oops!

opethdisciple · 21 Jul 2015 at 23:10

I've gone back to the 32bit version to. Heavy ram usage. (Not a bad thing it is after all a 64bit program), but it looks like your need minimum 8Gb of ram I reckon.

opethdisciple · 21 Jul 2015 at 23:53

Rainmaker said:
Sounds more like a dodgy profile or extension. I'm running a CPU far weaker and older than yours (an Athlon 64 x2) and Cyberfox x64 is only using 0.2% CPU on idle with three tabs open (Facebook messages, this thread, a heavy forum full of tables). Loading an intensive page spikes CPU to 20% for a second then back to idle, just as you'd expect when any program does some work.

Although dubious I'm going to try a new profile.

---

So I deleted my Firefox profile and that didn't change a thing. The difference between Chrome and Firefox is night and day.

Open this in both Firefox and Chrome and scroll up and down. Huge difference.

Rainmaker · 22 Jul 2015 at 00:35

opethdisciple said:
Although dubious I'm going to try a new profile.

---

So I deleted my Firefox profile and that didn't change a thing. The difference between Chrome and Firefox is night and day.

Open this in both Firefox and Chrome and scroll up and down. Huge difference.

Sorry to sound obtuse but I didn't notice any real difference. Firefox took a bit longer to render the page (it tends to load the whole page before rendering, whereas Chrome/Blink likes to render as it loads which 'appears' faster), but scrolling was the same in both browsers on my MacBook pro.

opethdisciple · 22 Jul 2015 at 01:23

Rainmaker said:
Sorry to sound obtuse but I didn't notice any real difference. Firefox took a bit longer to render the page (it tends to load the whole page before rendering, whereas Chrome/Blink likes to render as it loads which 'appears' faster), but scrolling was the same in both browsers on my MacBook pro.

Nope. Any input is useful. I too have noticed that Firefox on Macs tends to be better than windows.

Unfortunately I'm on a windows machine (4Gb ram, Qx9650 and an SSD)

Rainmaker · 22 Jul 2015 at 01:25

opethdisciple said:
Nope. Any input is useful. I too have noticed that Firefox on Macs tends to be better than windows.

Unfortunately I'm on a windows machine (4Gb ram, Qx9650 and an SSD)

When I'm next on my Win10 machine I'll give it a try for you and report back. At least then you might know whether it's just your machine or FF on Windows in general.

opethdisciple · 22 Jul 2015 at 01:29

Rainmaker said:
When I'm next on my Win10 machine I'll give it a try for you and report back. At least then you might know whether it's just your machine or FF on Windows in general.

I was just about to post something similar.

Was gonna say, hopefully Win 10 makes a difference to Firefox.

---

However getting back to this, it's not just my home pc that's struggles with Firefox. My work Pc which is a core2quad 2.3ghz and my sisters pc which is a core2duo 3Ghz also see massive differences when using Chrome as compared to Firefox.

Even some of the guys in my office have switched form Firefox to Chrome, due t it being just too slow.

All a bit too much of a coincidence.

I want to do use Firefox a really really do, hence why I keep uninstalling Chrome and going back, but then the experience is horrible.

The one thing common in all these scenarios tho is win 7.

---

Edit.

It got so bad yesterday I was thinking if I should just upgrade this machine. (Move my current gaming rig - i5 - 8gb ram over to my older rig and buy a new 5820k set-up)

But throwing £600 at the problem just because Firefox lags is ludicrous, when Chrome is fine.

AthlonXP1800 · 22 Jul 2015 at 09:13

opethdisciple said:
It doesnt say beta here.

I bet you never been updated your 64 bit Chrome. :eek:

Still say beta for a year now! I ran update to downloaded new update and it is now up to date.

bledd · 22 Jul 2015 at 09:50

I've been using Canary Chrome since it went to 64bit. Using it heavily every day, haven't come across any issues!

https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/browser/canary.html

Draeger · 22 Jul 2015 at 10:14

AthlonXP1800 said:
I bet you never been updated your 64 bit Chrome.

Still say beta for a year now! I ran update to downloaded new update and it is now up to date.

I had still been running the previous version. Didn't realise there was an update out - thanks for the 'heads up'.

opethdisciple · 22 Jul 2015 at 10:25

AthlonXP1800 said:
I bet you never been updated your 64 bit Chrome.

Still say beta for a year now! I ran update to downloaded new update and it is now up to date.

Maybe that's because your on the beta channel not the stable channel.

The version I linked to above doesn't say beta.