Gizmos Freeware Reviews  

Go Back   Gizmo's Freeware Forum > Debating Chamber > Internet, Web Apps and Networking

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28. Sep 2014, 05:21 AM   #1 (permalink)
Editor
 
George.J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,940
Cool Chrome 64-bit Vs 32-bit For Windows Is 64-bit Worth Installing?

Interesting article for Google Chrome users. Should you use 32 bit or 64bit?

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/chrome-...th-installing/
__________________
If you seek for attention, do common things in life in an uncommon way!
George.J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28. Sep 2014, 12:14 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Good timing. I was in the middle of comparing Chrome 32-bit and 64-bit, Firefox 32-bit and Waterfox 64-bit. I'll be adding much of what I found to the Windows Web Browser Performance article where it will be easier to understand the comparisons below.

I had 1, 20 and 50 tabs open in Chrome using the alexa list of top site (excluding rated bad by WOT, problem found with Avast, or would upset some people).
  • memory used with all tabs open: 32-bit used less until 50 websites was reached when 64-bit had caught up.
  • memory used after all but one tab released: 32-bit consistently used a little less than 64-bit
  • CPU time to open all tabs: 64-bit used 40% less than 32-bit
With Firefox/Waterfox it was similar except they use nearly 40-50% less memory than Chrome at 20 ad 50 tabs, the 32-bit version uses 25% less CPU time, and 64-bit was only just less than Chrome.
  • memory used with all tabs open: 32-bit used less but 64-bit was catching up. Probably would have been ahead at 70-80 tabs but I didn't test that many.
  • memory used after all but one tab released: 32-bit consistently used a little less than 64-bit
  • CPU time to open all tabs: 64-bit used 20% less than 32-bit
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28. Sep 2014, 05:24 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 129
Default

I knew Chrome was a resource hog but I do like 360 browser, Opera and Maxthon
Tried the new Fox... couldn't find anything.. Dropped that one..
Palemoon is also on my like list..
CASD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29. Sep 2014, 01:03 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Here's two Chrome graphs:

Memory: Initially Chrome 64 uses more memory but the more sites I had open then the more efficient it became. The "After" series are how much memory is used when all but the first tab are closed.

CPU time: Chrome 64 does better all the way. Responsiveness seemed better too but that was more noticeable with IE than Chrome.

Personally, if I was using Chrome I would use 64-bit for the better security and better memory management. I prefer Firefox/Waterfox because they use a lot less memory as I typically have a lot of tabs open.
Attached Images
File Type: png Chrome-tabs-509x280.png (7.9 KB, 2 views)
File Type: png Chrome-CPU-550x280.png (6.3 KB, 2 views)

Last edited by Remah; 29. Sep 2014 at 01:09 AM. Reason: grammar + additional notes
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29. Sep 2014, 03:04 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Edtor
 
v.laurie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,380
Default

There is a lot of good stuff coming from Remah these days (and in the past). It's great to see real numbers backing up conclusions instead of opinions. Bravo, Remah!
__________________
Vic
v.laurie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29. Sep 2014, 04:11 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by v.laurie View Post
There is a lot of good stuff coming from Remah these days (and in the past). It's great to see real numbers backing up conclusions instead of opinions. Bravo, Remah!
Thanks. But I wonder why I do it. My wife watched me doing some testing last night and I explained what I was doing. She said, "That looks really boring." and it is.

Web browser benchmarking is more difficult to compare now that hardware acceleration (using the graphics processor) is widely used. It's far more difficult to predict the results.

I didn't test the multi window scenarios which would show a different picture if every tab were in its own window.

Here's Firefox and IE for comparison. Firefox uses less memory and CPU than IE or Chrome. IE 64 appears to get worse the more pages loaded.
Attached Images
File Type: png Firefox-tabs-539x280.png (7.6 KB, 2 views)
File Type: png IE-tabs-529x280.png (6.3 KB, 2 views)
File Type: png Firefox-CPU-500x280.png (5.8 KB, 1 views)
File Type: png IE-CPU-494x280.png (5.6 KB, 2 views)
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.

Last edited by Remah; 29. Sep 2014 at 04:12 AM. Reason: Spelling
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29. Sep 2014, 06:39 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

You can see larger versions of similar graphs in the updated article Windows Web Browser Performance
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29. Sep 2014, 12:21 PM   #8 (permalink)
Editor
 
George.J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by v.laurie View Post
There is a lot of good stuff coming from Remah these days (and in the past). It's great to see real numbers backing up conclusions instead of opinions. Bravo, Remah!
You are right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Remah View Post
Thanks. But I wonder why I do it. My wife watched me doing some testing last night and I explained what I was doing. She said, "That looks really boring." and it is.
Thank god, am not married (yet)
__________________
If you seek for attention, do common things in life in an uncommon way!
George.J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29. Sep 2014, 07:38 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George.J View Post
Thank god, am not married (yet)
I wasn't complaining at all. She helps to keep me grounded in the real world.

The reason we don't see more people benchmarking to get "real numbers" is that it is repetitive drudgery.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.