ie8 fix
madison

Networking

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Home / News & Blogs / Networking

Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered

By | March 10, 2011, 7:26am PST

Summary: I, and a lot of my readers, were puzzled about why my recent SunSpider results showed IE 9 doing so badly compared to Chrome 10, so I took a closer look. This time IE 9 took first by a nose.

When I recently took a look at the brand new Chrome 10 Web browser, the results for the latest release candidate of Internet Explorer (IE) 9 puzzled me because they were so bad. Some of my readers were more than puzzled. Some were outraged and accused me of deliberating trying to set up IE to fail. Please. I call them like I see them and, in my tests, the IE 9 RC was just dreadfully slow compared to the others.

Still, as I said, I wasn’t happy with my results. When I started hearing from people that I respected, like my ZDNet bud Ed Bott, that he was also seeing results that put IE 9 RC just ahead of Chrome, I decided to re-run my benchmarks and take a closer look at my results.

The first thing I did was to start talking with Microsoft, who, as you might have guessed, had wanted to talk to me anyway, and to set up a new benchmark PC. This time around I picked a Gateway SX2802-07 desktop. This PC uses a 2.6GHZ Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5300 processor and has 6GBs of RAM and a 640GB hard-drive.

I burned out everything that currently lived on that system with my favorite system repair Linux distribution SystemRescueCD. I then installed on Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit from the partitions on up. After that I brought it up to date with Windows 7 SP1. In passing, let me say that while I know some people have had trouble with Windows 7 SP1, SP1 is a good patch. While it’s not as big a comparative improvement as Windows XP SP3was in its day, I think most Windows 7 users would be better off going with SP1.

OK, so I now have a fresh system with nothing on it except Windows. Once more I installed the latest IE 9 release candidate. This time though there was nothing else on the system, not even Chrome 10 yet, that might cause trouble. And, once again I sent IE 9 64-bit on its trip through the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark 0.91 and this time it came in 1111.3ms (milliseconds). Yuck!

I was getting closer to working out the riddle though. I had used the 64-bit version of IE9 because generally speaking 64-bit applications run marginally faster on 64-bit architectures. Now, with a Web browser that’s not likely to make a big difference. The real win for the current generation of most 64-bit software is its access to more than 4GBs of RAM. Or, in Windows case, about 3.25GB, once you’ve taken out the RAM used for the BIOS, the PCI and PCI Express buses, etc. etc. With a 64-bit system, you have a theoretical maximum of 16 Exabytes, or about 16-billion GBs, but Microsoft currently puts a 16TB limit on address space and allows only 128GB of physical RAM. Only HD photography and video editors are likely to run into limits.

Still, 32-bit IE 9 would need to run on Windows on Windows 64-bit (WOW64)–which had nothing to do with World of Warcraft–and WoW64 could have caused slightly reduced 32-bit IE 9’s speed. Well, that’s what I thought anyway.

But, then I ran 32-bit IE 9 on my 64-bit Windows 7. Wow. Now, IE 9 came in at 245.4ms. This was actually faster than Chrome 10, which came in at 266.7ms. So, for the moment at least IE9 is actually the fastest browser I’ve tested to date.

Page 2: [Why 32-bit IE is faster than 64-bit IE] »

More from “Networking”

Topics

32-bit, Microsoft Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Internet Explorer, 64-bit Version, Web Browsers, 64-Bit, Internet, Processors, Semiconductors, Hardware, Components, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it.

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
157
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
bnlf 10th Mar 2011
strange. I got 219ms on my pc last time. I?m pretty sure i?m always running 64bit but i?ll recheck tonight. btw my pc is intel Quad q9550 (2.8ghz) + 4gb ram (800mhz).
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
sjvn@... 10th Mar 2011
@bnlf Not really your Quad's a faster than what I used.

Steven
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Hasam1991 10th Mar 2011
@sjvn@...
I have 12 quads on my PC, beat that!!!
0 Votes
+ -
So Steven, when you tested IE9 on Windows 7 *32* bit yesterday
honeymonster Updated - 10th Mar 2011
@sjvn@...
This you wrote at 03/09/2011 11:51 AM:
@G-Systems You know I thought my IE9 numbers were quite slow also, so before I wrote that tale, I tried it several more times--on Win 7 SP1 32 and 64-bit systems and on several different PCs. It still was slow as heck.
Are the results you get "today" different now that you know the explanation? What changed?

IE9 64 bit will not run on 32 bit Windows, so if you tested on a 32 bit Windows 7 SP1, how come you still had it "slow as heck" when we now know that the explanation is that the 64bit RC is not yet using the same JIT'er?

Steven, did you really test IE9 on a 32 bit Windows 7? If you did, then I am really puzzled that you are satisfied with the 64/32 bit explanation.

Or, were you (gosh!) just lying a little bit about the lengths you went to?
1 Vote
+ -
An unclear correction has led to more confusion.
WilErz 10th Mar 2011
@ honeymonster

Vaughan-Nichols's initial deception, and less than clear correction, has how generated a new round of confusion, as readers try to figure out how to install/run the 32-bit version of IE9 on 64-bit Windows. What they don't realise, of course, is that 32-bit IE9 is the one they've been running all along -- and that all the other major browsers are 32-bit too.

This fact that 32-bit is the default for all the major browsers, including IE9, is central to any open and honest correction. Unfortunately, this key point was only mentioned in a quote from Tim Sneath on page two, amongst a barrage of irrelevant details and confused nonsense (e.g. confusing RAM limits in 32- versus 64-bit OSes with the address-space limits for 32- versus 64-bit processes running on a 64-bit OS, and the implication that things like reinstalling the OS had anything to do with the results).

Sheer incompetence may explain Vaughan-Nichols's implication that 64-bit IE9 is the norm, and that running 32-bit IE9 requires some extra effort. However, in view of the record, I'm afraid I'm inclined to suspect otherwise.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
daboochmeister 11th Mar 2011
@WilErz ... Sheer incompetence may explain your implication that 32-bit browsers are the norm on 64-bit systems, since of course on a Linux 64-bit system you're almost certainly running a 64-bit version of the browser as well. Oh wait, you meant on Windows! That's right, maybe, just maybe, when you know one platform better than the other, you transfer assumptions. And maybe it's not incompetence, maybe it's being human. And maybe we should all cut each other some slack. Sheesh, it's a blog, not a frickin' peer-reviewed technical journal.
1 Vote
+ -
Deceit, not incompetence
honeymonster 11th Mar 2011
@WillErz

My point was that SJVN claimed that he had even tried running IE9 on a 32bit Windows 7 SP1 - and that it still produced the same "slow as heck" results. He made that claim not in his article but in the talkback to back up why he stood by his numbers.

We now know this was a lie . It is the 64bit IE9 which does not feature the speedy JIT. But SJVN could not have tried 64bit IE9 on a 32bit Windows. If it was true that he even tried the 32bit Windows he would have gotten the same fast results as everybody else.

@daboochmeister

For certain the Windows platform is not SJVNs strong side. That does not hold him back from posting frivolous claims about it, though. Sometimes he will post pure speculation (like Windows being the culprit of the LSE network problems), but at other times he will post claims such as that Windows 7 was originally designed as a single-user system.

You may excuse incompetency, but only so far. When you pass yourself off as tech savvy there are some minimal qualifications you have to meet.

But even if you allow some room for errors, when those errors show a clear tendency to err in a certain direction, incompetency can not be the lone explanation. Ignorance or arrogance coupled with bias comes to mind. Although personally I suspect he is knowing playing to myths to advance personal agendas.
1 Vote
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
WilErz 11th Mar 2011
@ honeymonster

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, just pointing out that, by avoiding a simple admission of his 'mistake' (genuine or malicious), Vaughan-Nichols has created yet more confusion.

@ daboochmeister

Please do at least try to think before you post. The article is about IE9 and other browsers on Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Jimster480 10th Mar 2011
@bnlf yea a E5200 is pretty slow. So if your running a C2Q then its not surprise that your results were alot better. I have a Phenom II so if I ran it I'm sure I would get a much better score aswell.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Dmachine 10th Mar 2011
@bnlf
I just ran the benchmark and got 176.1. I'm running 64 bit ie9 on an SSD.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
This was a problem during the IE9 beta as well!
Empro 10th Mar 2011
Scroll down to the beta benchmarks on this page: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/windows-browsers-benchmarked-october-2010-edition.ars
0 Votes
+ -
horrific
cabdriverjim 10th Mar 2011
That is just horrific all around.
1) That they are focusing their effort on 32-bit.
2) They they HAVE to focus effort on a specific architecture for an APPLICATION.
3) That they designed Windows x64 in a way that code has to be reengineered instead of simply rebuilt (as with most other systems).
4) And thanks to 3, that the 64-bit browser can't load 32-bit extensions.
1 Vote
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
bitcrazed 10th Mar 2011
@cabdriverjim - it's a question of resources.

If you had a team with a finite number of people and a finite amount of time available to create a brand new product, would you opt to spend the majority of your time optimizing your product for 99% of your customers or for 1% of your customers?

As the article correctly states, only apps that require > 2GB RAM per instance will benefit from being ported to 64-bit. 64-bit code and data is bigger than 32-bit code and data. This means that 64-bit code and data takes up more disk space, more memory, more IO to read and write to/from disk and reduces cache efficiency.

Rememberin that IE9 largely runs each browser tab in its own process. Thus, a 64-bit browser isn't REQUIRED unless an individual page required > 2GB RAM.

Further, until Adobe and others port their plug-ins for Flash, Reader, etc. to 64-bit, 64-bit browsers (like IE8/9 64-bit) won't be able to render flash, video, PDF's, etc.

Microsoft have done absolutely the right thing by spending all their budget on optimizing IE9 for 99% of its customers and partners. They're already working on optimizing Chakra for 64-bit and will release that update later.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Jimster480 10th Mar 2011
@bitcrazed There are already 64 bit plugins. I use 64 bit minefield with no issues. And the 64 bit app uses no more ram than a 32 bit app. Because with 64 bit processing, things that would take 2 sets of instructions can take only 1 (because of the larger addressing).
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
bitcrazed 10th Mar 2011
@Jimster480 - you may be using 2 plug-ins, but there are tens of thousands out there that are still only 32-bit.

You clearly don't understand what happens when you compile your app to x64: 64-bit apps are on average around 25-30% larger than the exact same code compiled to 32-bit. This is because every pointer is now doubled in size (to 64-bits) and that every int is now 64 bits long rather than 32 bits long.

64-bit code can, in some situations, make better use of the larger number of registers available on x64 chips.

As you (partially correctly stated) x64 code can sometimes optimize calculations by using larger operands, thus reducing the number of instructions used, but this generally constitutes a microscopically small proportion of most app code.

As an example, compare the sizes of the common files in "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer" (64-bit IE) and "C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer" (32-bit IE).
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Jimster480 10th Mar 2011
@cabdriverjim thats just IE. I run 64 bit minefield with 64 bit Flash. And there are no issues. Its very fast aswell. And it has HW acceleration.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
odubtaig 10th Mar 2011
Have you ever actually done anything at all with 32/64bit development? For one thing, _every_ program on _every_ system that runs on x86_64 (at the least) has to be rearchitectured for 64bit. When SuSE GMBH brought out the first 64bit Linux they had to provide both 32 and 64bit libraries and guess what, the browser plugins only worked in 32bit. This is _not_ a Windows specific problem, this is a problem borne of silicon which provides 64bit instructions as an extension to a natively 32bit marchitecture.

Next time, get a clue before spooging your ignorance across the internet.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
philip.robar@... 10th Mar 2011
@odubtaig

I was in Sun Microsystems' Solaris OS/Net group when we did the first 64 bit version of Solaris. While I don't want to trivialize the effort, to say that "_every_ program on _every_ system that runs on x86_64 (at the least) has to be rearchitectured for 64bit" is a gross exaggeration.
0 Votes
+ -
PS
odubtaig 10th Mar 2011
No-one except a few noobs give a crap about 64bit browsers but a lot of people can only run 32bit. Let's count the number of browser developers officially releasing 64bit builds...

No-one cares, but damn you numerically obsessed nerdlingers sure are clogging up the internet with your self-important crap.
0 Votes
+ -
OK, Let me see if I have this correct...
cnejenkins 10th Mar 2011
We applaud MS for keeping up with Jones by putting out a product that still directly competes with every other browser ever made. (Oh, but it's faster (for now)). MS has deep enough pockets that they could have taken the risk and been a pioneer, a champion for moving forward with 64bit development. The fact that MS has lost ground in the marketplace (Slight, but noteworthy) is because they are consistantly last to the table with competing products. The whole Andriod/IPAD revolution has success because it has a champion that was willing to push a few boundries. Declaring those who value innovation, and help prod it along to be self-important - is simply just ignorant. The self -important person see's technology only in the here and now. Without the "noobs" you wouldn't even have 32bit - you'd still be counting your brain cells on your fingers. I am just saying...
0 Votes
+ -
The MS story keeps getting funnier and funnier
Richard Flude 10th Mar 2011
And to think the MCSEs mocked Apple with Snow Leopard.

MS declares, in writing, they put more effort into past generation technology (decades old). Technology retired on other platforms. Lets go fanboys;-)
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
tonymcs@... 10th Mar 2011
@Richard Flude

Fortunately or unfortunately MS has to deal with being the world's OS, not just cater for people with more money than sense that want to use last century's Unix with a makeover.
0 Votes
+ -
Snow Leopard?
WilErz 10th Mar 2011
@ Richard Flude

Snow Leopard? You mean the '64-bit' version of Mac OS X that Apple shipped running a 32-bit kernel by default?

http://www.zdnet.com/news/64-bit-snow-leopard-defaults-to-32-bit-kernel/336194

Snow Leopard was using a 32-bit kernel by default (and I believe it still does on some current Macs), and Apple, who made a lot of noise about it being 64-bit, deserved to be mocked for that.

Windows was 64-bit long before OS X. IE is just an app that runs in user mode, which Microsoft offer in 32- and 64-bit versions. Since the overwhelming majority of plug-ins are 32-bit, browser makers tend to focus on 32-bit browsers, even on 64-bit OSes. Microsoft are hardly unusual in that.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
WinTard 16th Mar 2011
@Richard Flude

Let me remind you that Windows XP 64-bit Edition was um, a full-64 bit OS back in 2002. Unlike Apple which is on its first 64-bit OS back in August 28 2009. Talk about inexperienced noobs...

As of June 2010, Microsoft have released seventeen editions for the x64 processor architecture: Source: Wikipedia
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter x64 Edition
Windows Vista Home Basic x64 Edition
Windows Vista Home Premium x64 Edition
Windows Vista Enterprise x64 Edition
Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition
Windows Server 2008 Web Server x64 Edition
Windows Server 2008 Standard x64 Edition
Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition
Windows Server 2008 Datacenter x64 Edition
Windows 7 Home Basic x64 Edition
Windows 7 Home Premium x64 Edition
Windows 7 Professional x64 Edition
Windows 7 Enterprise x64 Edition
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Edition.

Snow Leopard is just FreeBSD with a pretty and closed-source Aqua GUI + bootloader... What innovation are you talking about? Oh you mean the magic mouse?

~~~~~~~~~~
The fixity of a habit is generally in direct proportion to its absurdity.
~ Proust

The future, according to some scientists, will be exactly like the past, only more expensive.
~ John Sladek
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
silentlennie 10th Mar 2011
@cabdriverjim I don't know if you know how Javascript JIT works ? But it actually means the script is compiled to CPU-instructionset specific code during runtime. The CPU-instructionset in this case for examples means 32-bit x86.

The other browsers do the same, they optimise per instructionset as well. Take a look at this page and compare 32-bit with 64-bit: http://arewefastyet.com/
0 Votes
+ -
What an embarrassing comment.
WilErz 10th Mar 2011
@ cabdriverjim

'1) That they are focusing their effort on 32-bit.'

The default versions of Chrome and FireFox are 32-bit too, even on 64-bit OSes -- also primarily because of plug-ins. There's nothing unusual about IE here.

'2) They they HAVE to focus effort on a specific architecture for an APPLICATION.'

It's a Jit /compiler/. Do you know what a compiler is? It's a program that converts source code (in this case JavaScript) to machine code (at run-time, since it's a Jit compiler). Since x86 machine code is different to x64 machine code, you have to write compilers (at least the back ends) for both. Again, there's nothing unusual about IE here, nor about Windows -- it's the same on any OS.

'3) That they designed Windows x64 in a way that code has to be reengineered instead of simply rebuilt (as with most other systems).'

See above.

'4) And thanks to 3, that the 64-bit browser can't load 32-bit extensions.'

In commonly used OSes, a 64-bit process can't load a 32-bit shared library (which is what an 'extension' or 'plug-in' is, on IE, Chrome, FireFox, etc.). This is true on Windows, Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, etc. There's nothing unusual about Windows or IE here.

I'm sorry, but you really ought to be embarrassed at having posted what you did. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and just advertises that you're a zealot who doesn't understand the technology you preach about.
0 Votes
+ -
No Gray Area Here
NightFlight 13th Mar 2011
@WilErz
Bravo M8! I read the article and was left scratching my head, so....I went back and ran the test. Just as I had assumed, but could it have been a fanboy bias? 240.5 ms on mine and I can't run IE9 64-bit on my 32-bit system either...LOL They can't give MS credit when it's due and debating someone with a closed mind is my definition of insanity.
0 Votes
+ -
So now you will do the honorable thing
honeymonster 10th Mar 2011
and go back and make an edit/update to your faulty article?
0 Votes
+ -
Or maybe Microsoft could do the honorable thing...
jasonp@... 10th Mar 2011
@honeymonster
and make their 64 bit browser work at least as good as their 32 bit browser.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Rich Miles 10th Mar 2011
@jasonp@... Just like Google did with Chrome... oh wait. There isn't a 64-bit version of Chrome for Windows. Weird.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't even think you can download
Michael Alan Goff Updated - 10th Mar 2011
a non-minefield 64-bit firefox.
Opera isn't 64-bit either.
Safari has no 64-bit version for Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Jimster480 10th Mar 2011
@jasonp@... its not a big deal. Minefield is the only working 64 bit browser.
0 Votes
+ -
Rich, don't forget, MS is held to a different standard....
xuniL_z 10th Mar 2011
The ABMers are all so hung up on "standards" they granted themselves 2.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
audidiablo 10th Mar 2011
@Jimster480

Actually, Minefield and Internet Explorer are the only two 64-bit browsers that both work although IE9 x64 may be a bit behind don't think that MS isn't going to address this next.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
pethers 10th Mar 2011
@jasonp@...
Of course they will make their 64bit IE9 eventually, they are just focusing on the most used and most compatible version first.
How does this not make sense to people???
0 Votes
+ -
Honourable? Hardly.
WilErz 11th Mar 2011
@jasonp@...

Apart from the JavaScript Jit compiler, which by definition is CPU-architecture-specific, the 32- and 64-bit versions of IE9 seem to be exactly the same. Approximately nobody uses 64-bit IE, and other browsers tend to be offered only as 32-bit binaries, so there's absolutely no reason to waste resources writing a 64-bit Jit compiler.

If browsers eventually begin to move to 64-bit, e.g. because of very large/complex web apps that require more than 2GB of address space, then browser developers, including Microsoft, will certainly port their JavaScript Jit compilers to 64-bit. Doing that now wouldn't be honourable, it would be stupid.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Tiggster 10th Mar 2011
Looks like Microsoft has finally beaten the browser competition again. It's about time! happy
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Classic94 10th Mar 2011
@Tiggster

IE9 = FASTEST FTW!!!!

Chrome = "Damn I'm too slow, should not have had Flash for dinner..."(Flash built-in)
0 Votes
+ -
Please udpate your previous article with a link to this new article.
amitpawar@... 10th Mar 2011
Please udpate your previous article with a link to this new article.
0 Votes
+ -
64bit vs 32bit
DevStar 10th Mar 2011
Steven, you make a statement that 64bit apps tend to be slightly faster on 64bit architectures than 32bit apps. On some platforms this might be true, but it's generally not true on Windows.

On Windows, 64bit apps will use 64bit pointers, even if the application doesn't need the additional address space. The result is poorer locality (more i-cache misses and page faults). The only time you're likely to see perf win with 64bit is for apps that don't use pointers much (like scientific computation) where the extra registers pay off or apps that need more than 4GB of address space.

Of course, this doesn't explain the huge delta that you saw (which was explained by the old JIT that you noted). But it might be something to keep in mind in general.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
bitcrazed 10th Mar 2011
@DevStar - ... slight correction:

Non-width-specific integer types (i.e. int vs in32) will also double in size. The vast majority of code declares integers as non-width-specific, unless those integers map in some way to a hardware register or specifically reflect a very specific algorithm or structure (e.g. an IO protocol or on-disk data structure).

Thus, most data will expand by around 30% when compiled to 64-bit. The corresponding impact on instruction and data caching is measurable, as is the IO and bus traffic.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Jimster480 10th Mar 2011
@bitcrazed While this is true it can still run at the same speed. And things that can take advantage of the additional addressing are significantly faster.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
bitcrazed 10th Mar 2011
@Jimster480 - go and cross-compile a stock 32-bit app to 64-bit, then compare the performance of both.

I am willing to bet that your 64-bit app's perf will NOT be anywhere near the 32-bit code and WILL require some profiling, testing and modification to meet, let alone exceed the perf of the 32-bit code.

Again, unless AN INDIVIDUAL PROCESS requires > 2GB RAM you will NOT be likely to see a massive perf improvement overall.

Any perf benefit from being able to pass function params in registers rather than on the stack, or in being able to perform calculations with a few fewer instructions will be utterly dwarfed by the cost of loading code and data from disk, writing to disk, sending data across the network, and lower perf due to decreased cache coherency, etc.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Jimster480 10th Mar 2011
@DevStar such as WinRAR, since the 64 bit version is MUCH faster than the 32 bit version.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
I am Gorby 10th Mar 2011
@DevStar If you refer back to an earlier post here on ZDNet (and I don't remember when) it appears that MS had "optimized" their JIT to run the benchmark better.

No idea how it might run in real time.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Classic94 12th Mar 2011
@I am Gorby

So how does that stop other browsers from doing the same? Google optimizes Chrome to run fast on V8. If improving their browser to run better on a benchmark means improving the browser for us then good for them.
0 Votes
+ -
How stupid
GeiselS@... 10th Mar 2011
You know the end user isn't going to think 32 or 64 bit...in fact I didn't even think about it...because I use a 64 bit version of Windows 7, I naturally always selected the 64 bit version of IE...it sucked, was slow and something didn't work...guess what? I downloaded Firefox and it worked fine. When are companies like Microsoft going to realize that you can't depend on the end user to think things through and figure it out, they are more likely to blindly go forward just trying to get something to work. Guess that's why I have Chrome, Firefox and IE all installed in my computer...if it works I use it, if it doesn't I can't be bothered to figure it out, I'll just switch to something that does work. I've become a product of the environment in which I live...I want results and I want them now now now.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
stevew407 10th Mar 2011
@GeiselS@... I like your thinking. Yes it should just work!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
sunava 10th Mar 2011
@GeiselS@...

That's a really good point. I didn't it know either, and assumed that 64bit browser was better. MS would be better off just removing the 64bit browser from the OS, and having it as an optional install, and offering the above explanation/caution if users go to install it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
Nevellin 10th Mar 2011
@sunava I do it too. My problem is that IE9 actually is unstable in my pc. Sometimes it crashes. When it happens I swith to Chrome, Opera or Firefox (hate Firefox, but it works better sometimes). I always use only 64bit browsers (when it is a option) because I'm sure it is better than the 32bits version. Im really upset now... ??
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Chrome 10 vs. Internet Explorer 9 Reconsidered
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix