Is FF64 faster than FF32?

Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster. 
Is this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on 
Saturday at 6am (EST)?
0
Luis
1/7/2017 12:36:29 PM
mozilla.support.firefox 23658 articles. 5 followers. Post Follow

13 Replies
71 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 41

Dne 07/01/2017 v 13:36 Luis napsal(a):
> Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster. Is
> this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on
> Saturday at 6am (EST)?

The best is to test it on local data,
e.g.some site downloaded for offline use,
otherwise it is affected by network performance.

Speeding up running by switching to 64 bit
is very dependent on processed data and program code structure.

Some code can be about twice as fast,
some just little faster
and some even slower, if regular or SSEx code optimization for 64bit
is not as thorough as for the mature 32 bit code.

-- 
Poutnik

Wise man guards the words he says,
as they may say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
0
Poutnik
1/7/2017 1:04:32 PM
On 2017-01-07 07:36, Luis wrote:
> Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster.
> Is this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on
> Saturday at 6am (EST)?

IMO it's an illusion. Startup time is slightly faster in my experience, 
but d/l tabs depends on how busy the local node is.

-- 
Wolf K.
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.
0
Wolf
1/7/2017 1:49:05 PM
On 2017-01-07 7:36 AM, Luis wrote:
> Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster. Is
> this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on
> Saturday at 6am (EST)?

For applications and games, it is faster. See 
<https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/12/15/firefox-64-bit-for-windows-available/>.

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
1/7/2017 8:20:24 PM
Luis wrote:

> Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster. 
> Is this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on 
> Saturday at 6am (EST)?

Sometime else to consider: how many fewer times remnant processes are
left in memory when you thought you exiting Firefox that end up
interferring with subsequent runs of Firefox.  I had to create a toolbar
shortcut because in a day Firefox might not properly exit 1 or 2 times.
that left behind remnant processes still running that interferred when I
next wanted to load Firefox.  I would load Firefox, wait, nothing
appeared, and then run it again to then get a window for it.  That was
with the 32-bit version.  Most users wouldn't go looking in Task Manager
to notice there were firefox.exe, flashplayerplugin, or
plugin-container.exe processes still running more than a minute after t
hey thought they had exited Firefox.  I'd exit Firefox and would
sometimes find these processes still running many hours after my last
Firefox session.

I suspect my config of having Firefox purge everything on exit caused it
to not completely shutdown.  Nope, not due to add-ons since I tested
with none installed and the remnant processes still would happen
occasionally.  Not a user profile issue, either.  Because this happened
too often with the 32-bit version of Firefox, I created a .bat file that
used taskkill.exe to kill of the firefox.exe, flashplayerplugin, and
plugin-container.exe processes and added a shortcut to a toolbar in my
Windows taskbar (right next to the shortcut to load Firefox).  When I
try to start Firefox and don't see a window, I'd see one, or more, of
the remnant processes so I'd hit the Kill Firefox button in the toolbar
and loading works just fine afterward.  

Although I have been hit a few times with an unresponsive load (due to
remnant processes) in the 64-bit version, the number of times that I had
to use my taskkill shortcut on remnant Firefox processes is way down,
maybe to once per week.  In fact, in happens so infrequently that I
often end up waiting longer than I should for Firefox's window to appear
before realizing, oh yeah, click the kill button and retry.  So the
64-bit version has proven much more stable for me.

Oh, and the 64-bit version loads a wee bit faster than the 32-bit
version.  I know lots of web surfers leave their web browser loaded even
when they don't use it because they will use it several times a day.
For me, I exit an application that I'm not currently using and will load
it again later when I do actually use it.  So I end up loading Firefox
many times a day, and it is noticeably faster to load (but not super
faster).  As for loading web sites, that is outside the control of
Firefox.  Page rendering speed may differ between the 32- and 64-bit
versions of Firefox but downstream bandwidth, speed of nodes in the
route between me and the target site, throttling of bandwidth for each
connection at the target site, and other factors are all outside the
control of Firefox or any web browser.  There are some that try to
incorporate web caching (e.g., Opera) but that won't help unless you
happen to visit where someone previously visited, and it has no effect
if you are already on an always-only high-speed cable Internet
connection (the cache only helps on revisiting pages over a slow
connection).
0
VanguardLH
1/7/2017 10:17:51 PM

"Luis" <nospam@anymail.com> wrote

| Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster.
| Is this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on
| Saturday at 6am (EST)?

See here:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd630764%28v=office.12%29.aspx

  The main difference is RAM. If you have FF loaded with
6 GB of data, and you have 16 GB RAM, then it will be
faster on 64-bit where all of that RAM can be used.
32 bit will only see about 4 GB, minus whatever's used
for graphics.
  But as you can see from the article above, even
when trying to sell 64-bit Microsoft can't make much
of a case for it beyond that. It just means that the
standard data type is 64 bit instead of 32 bit. How
useful that is depends on the size of data being worked
with. At one point in the article they say that 64-bit
CPU can calculate twice as fast. They seem to be
implying a situation where number crunching is dealing
with very large numbers. If the CPU has to add 10 + 10
1 million times it's hard to see why there might be a
speed difference. It just means that the two variables
being added will probably be stored in 8 bytes of
memory rather than in 4 bytes. But since 20 only needs
one byte, there's no added efficiency with 64-bit.

  But all of that is just concerned with speed of
program operations. If you want speed in loading
webpages then disable script and set any media
plugins to ask before activating. Another good idea
would be to use a HOSTS file to block the major ad
servers, which will also help protect security and
privacy. I also block 3rd-party files for most sites.
The result is virtually instant page loads, on vanilla
Win XP 32-bit with FF 32-bit.

Blocking 3rd-party images:
 in about:config - permissions.default.image Value: 3

  Note, however, that some sites serve files from
multiple domains these days. If you go to somenews.com
and their images come from snimg.com then you won't
see them with that setting. I find that using the setting
productively requires having a second browser on hand
for times that I want/need to see such pictures. 


0
Mayayana
1/7/2017 10:46:13 PM
In article <mailman.1237.1483792623.19728.support-
firefox@lists.mozilla.org>, nospam@anymail.com says...
>  Is FF64 faster than FF32?
> 
> 

One web page that compared several web browsers also compared the 64-bit 
Firefox to 32-bit on a Windows system, and the summary of comparison of 
the two builds of Firefox is:

"RAM usage is nearly the same on start but once all ten websites were 
fully loaded it was apparent that the 64-bit version of Firefox used way 
more RAM than the 32-bit version. That's to be expected but something 
one should consider especially on devices where RAM is scarce.

"Benchmarks on the other hand show only marginal differences which means 
that users won't see a performance boost in either version when compared 
to the other."

The above is taken from: http://www.ghacks.net/2016/01/03/32-bit-vs-64-
bit-browsers-which-version-has-the-edge/ The page was authored on 
January 3, 2016, so it is about a year old, using Firefox 43.0.3. (As of 
today, 50.1 is the current release.)

It wouldn't surprise me if some things are faster in the 64-bit version 
(Mozilla mentions JavaScript execution by using registers and 
instructions available in the 64-bit that aren't available in the 32-
bit), and the benchmarks that ghacks ran does show that the 32-bit build 
is faster with some benchmarks and the 64-bit build faster with other 
benchmarks, but I haven't seen anyone claim that the 64-bit build 
produces a demonstratively faster browser experience than the 32-bit 
build, or vice versa, when doing equivalent side-by-side comparisons.

(I did see one discussion thread where someone claimed 2x improvement, 
but after the differences were tracked down, it was determined that 
using uBlock Origin had cut web page rendering in half by eliminating 
advertisements and tracking URLs.)
0
Mark12547
1/7/2017 11:06:08 PM
Luis wrote:
> Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster. Is 
> this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on 
> Saturday at 6am (EST)?

Despite of the fact that no browser is faster than the network 
connection, path, page coding and servers, IMHO FF 64bit is overall 
faster than its 32 bit counterpart.  So, I changed my FF shortcuts to 
point to \Program Files\ without killing FF 32bits for a while.  Let's 
see how this evolves.
Of course guys, I appreciate and agree with most of your comments.
0
Luis
1/8/2017 2:24:54 PM
On 1/7/2017 6:36 AM, Luis wrote:
> Today I installed FF 51.0b12 (64-bit) and yes, it seems to be faster. Is
> this true or is it just an illusion considering that I tested it on
> Saturday at 6am (EST)?

Yes, it is faster. As others have said, it depends on the data. But 
overall, on a decent machine with a good amount of RAM (8GB+), 64-bit 
shines where 32-bit crawls and falls over from memory exhaustion and 
disk thrashing.
0
TCW
1/9/2017 5:29:12 PM
"TCW" <"."@.> wrote

| overall, on a decent machine with a good amount of RAM (8GB+), 64-bit
| shines where 32-bit crawls and falls over from memory exhaustion and
| disk thrashing.

   Memory exhaustion and disk thrashing? I gather
you mean accessing the swap file. 32-bit software
can see up to 4 GB of RAM. It won't "fall over" until
it gets that far, which is unlikely to happen with normal
operation. If your 32-bit software is falling over
from web browsing then it's time to close at least
the first 100 tabs. And if you have so many tabs
open then you can't be very much concerned with
efficiency and speed.

   The main reason for 64-bit software is simply
to accomodate large numbers. 32-bit numbers only go
up to about 4 billion, so only about 4 GB of memory
can be addressed by 32-bit pointers. That's all. 64-bit
isn't like doubling your car speed by increasing the engine
size.

    To put it another way, if you have to drive to LA
from NYC you can go in a car. If you have to deliver
500 watermelons to LA you'll want an 18-wheeler.
But, if you don't need to deliver 500 watermelons
then taking the car *will not* require 17 trips to
LA and back. Thus the 18-wheeler is better only
in a specific context. :)


0
Mayayana
1/9/2017 8:18:55 PM
Mayayana wrote:
> To put it another way, if you have to drive to LA
> from NYC you can go in a car. If you have to deliver
> 500 watermelons to LA you'll want an 18-wheeler.

Well, if you want to illustrate a digital issue with
an analogue example: if you apply adequate compression
to the watermelons before transporting them...

-p

0
PietB
1/11/2017 11:21:47 AM
On 2017-01-11 06:21, PietB wrote:
> Mayayana wrote:
>> To put it another way, if you have to drive to LA
>> from NYC you can go in a car. If you have to deliver
>> 500 watermelons to LA you'll want an 18-wheeler.
>
> Well, if you want to illustrate a digital issue with
> an analogue example: if you apply adequate compression
> to the watermelons before transporting them...
>
> -p

Email is like delivering a postcard with a 747. Texting is like passing 
notes with a container ship.

-- 
Wolf K.
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.
0
Wolf
1/11/2017 1:54:50 PM
"PietB" <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote

| Mayayana wrote:
| > To put it another way, if you have to drive to LA
| > from NYC you can go in a car. If you have to deliver
| > 500 watermelons to LA you'll want an 18-wheeler.
|
| Well, if you want to illustrate a digital issue with
| an analogue example: if you apply adequate compression
| to the watermelons before transporting them...
|

   It's got nothing to do with analog vs digital,
which is really just a meaningless euphemism to
imply old-fashioned vs cutting edge.

   8+ GB RAM is only better than 4 GB RAM if you
need to use more than 4 GB RAM. That might
happen when applying filters to giant images
with numerous levels of undo, or when editing
video. If it happens when browsing online then
something's wrong.

  I was once in line behind a man in a department
store who was buying car brake lights. The
3rd-brake-light fad had just arrived and he wanted
to retrofit his car. The lights were on sale, with a
limit of 5 per customer. Barely able to contain his
excitement, arms full with the limit of 5 lights, he
turned to me for a mutual conspiracy about our
amazing good fortune: "Only $4.99 each. What a
deal, huh?" I asked him if he had 5 cars. He looked
at me blankly. He hadn't thought about what he'd
do with the lights. Only that they were a great
deal. Analog or digital? If the same man now uses
32 GB RAM to write email, does that make it a
digital issue? Or as the musician Laurie Anderson
put it: "Que es mas macho, schoolbus o lightbulb?"


0
Mayayana
1/11/2017 2:29:43 PM
Dne 11/01/2017 v 14:54 Wolf K. napsal(a):

> 
> Email is like delivering a postcard with a 747. Texting is like passing
> notes with a container ship.
> 
Communication via webpages
is like adding into each letter a paving stone.

-- 
Poutnik

0
Poutnik
1/11/2017 5:54:40 PM
Reply: