What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
98 Comments
- Pocky, on 10/12/2007, -8/+46The Macbook Pro is not 64bit.
- scooby2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Most extensions work but plugins like flash, realplayer, etc. do not.
- spartan018, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24i would think that most extensions would work, being that they aren't compiled and are interpreted on the fly by FF and TB. however, there are some extensions which use pre-compiled services. these may or may not work, and the only way to find out is to try.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Sweet, now we can finally allocate a few dozen GB of memory to FireFox to cache all that history, maybe we'll finally have a responsive computer again... Good thing open source saved us from all that MS bloatware...
(I keed : P) - remcgregor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23"I doubt the extensions work. I know 64 bit Firefox on Linux requires 64 bit extensions. i.e. no Flash unless you use a 32 bit version."
Ummm...Flash is a plugin, not an extension. Two completely different things. An extension will generally work on Firefox running on Windows, Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris, etc. So I would guess 64 bit Linux would work for the most part too. Plugins are the major problem, not extensions. - illynova, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Call me a skeptic, but I dispute your claim that the difference in speed is incredible. For the most part, the move to 64bit only really increases the speed if you're moving lots of data around.
I did a highly unscientific test several months ago when I bought my AMD64 3400+, by first running a Ubuntu 32 (Generic), and then running the Ubuntu 64 bit live cd. It was _slightly_ more responsive, but only barely so.
Still, cool link. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18No special build will ever make Firefox as fast as Opera. Rebuilding for special processor features (ie. SSE, SSE2, x86-64) isn't like a magical fairy that will put NOS into Firefox.
That's like people who put flames on their car to make it go faster.
Now, for some actual information. These 64-bit versions won't increase your speed much. 64-bit processors aren't much faster for simple software like Firefox. Instead, you should look for unofficial builds at http://pryan.org/phoenix/ for features your processor supports that actually do make it faster. The SSE/2/3 instruction sets will help all software that utilize them a great deal. - mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14The page says (at the top) that it is for 64 bit Windows.
- koweja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Do the extensions still work, or do you need 64 bit ones?
- wolever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"That's like people who put flames on their car to make it go faster."
Yea, they've got it all wrong. You need go-faster stripes and speed holes! - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@shinynew
The extra cost, minimal performance gain and the fact that windows x64 is rarely bundled with new computers mean that it is not always worth while. I, personally, intend to wait for Vista x64. - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12To bad piratebay does have windows 64 bit torrents.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think that's a bit hard to believe. XP Pro 64-bit is based on Windows 2003 Server which is the most stable OS MS has released. Your problems were probably either driver or hardware related. Drivers are the main stumbling point for the 64-bit edition.
- shinaku, on 10/12/2007, -1/+864 bit CPUs are hardly expensive.
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9All firefox extensions are completely platform independent, which means they will work on any platform/operating system that can run firefox. Plugins (flash, multimedia, acrobat, embeded office objects) which actually allow the viewing of additional formats must be compiled for each platform/operating system combination, and very often for the different 'flavours' of browser on these - such as mozilla plugins or active x. IMO, plugins are rarely necessary and if you have a back up browser that works with them you should be fine.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9No. You need a 64-bit OS to use 64-bit programs.
- corsairstw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Speaking of optimized versions, here are the G4 and G5 optimized OS X versions of 1.5.0.2
http://www.beatnikpad.com/archives/2006/04/19/firefox-1502 - MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I would think it would be at least somewhat faster considering that the 32bit code in 64bit windows is run in emulation. It might not be substantial but it's better then emulation.
- eklitzke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This is *exactly* the same as the other optimized Firefox builds. For example, what's the point of a 686 (i.e. Pentium II and higher) optimized Firefox build if FF isn't using operations that can be handled by SSE or MMX extensions? Similarly, the G4 and G5 optimized Firefox builds are pointless because Firefox simply doesn't have a need for these extended instruction sets.
- robche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8agreed, there technically shouldnt be much improvement for a program like firefox
- pdeco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I've read in the past about the 64bit speed increase myth. 64 bit was not designed to speed up the system, it was made for larger integer support, more registers, and a much larger virtual address space. However, AMD does claim to see a 57% increase in speed with their 64-32 processers, but real world tests only note about 20-35% increase and some none at all. Having owned an amd64 3400+, i thought i was noticing great speed increases, i later concluded it was the efficiency of the AMD chip over my former intel.
- Justus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17AdamD was just asking a simple question...no need for the negative diggs
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The extra cost, minimal performance gain and the fact that windows x64 is rarely bundled with new computers mean that it is not always worth while. I, personally, intend to wait for Vista x64."
the performance gain might be minimal in the desktop, but its quite noticable in most games, 64bit Farcry of 64bit Halflife2 profit the most - volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@shinynew
Very few issues? Try installing it w/ a motherboard which won't even allow you to attempt the install and tell me there are very few issues. And yes it's a 64 bit system... - wolever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@shinynew:
Also, in my experience with Windows 64, it sucks. I'm not trying be an MS-bashing zealot here, but it really does. I spent a full day trying to get it running on my friend's machine and I had constant problems (drivers, mostly, but random BSODs and other fun too). Put XP 32 on there, ran perfectly second try (I'll admit I'm not great at installing Windows, I do it so infrequently). - oringo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not entirely impossible. One can imagine modifying QEMU to emulate a x86-64 CPU intead of a regular x86-32 CPU. Of course I don't know enough about CPU virtualization or the inner workings of QEMU to be sure. But it does sound plausible. Of course, instead of getting your speed-up, your 64-bit ff would only be running slow as hell!
- mwales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4On Linux, it's the same installation package for 32-bit and 64-bit. On a 64-bit Linux distro, if you have linux32 installed, you can call linux32 firefox, and it will start up in 32-bit mode (and flash works). If you just run firefox, it will start as a 64-bit executable.
- Xeppo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have been running XP x64 for quite a while now. I have had no problems whatsoever. Really, I like x64 for the simple reason that when I open up task manager, it's extremely easy to tell what 32-bit programs I'm running. In my opinion, XP x64 is one of the most stable operating systems that Microsoft has ever released.
- shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Xeppo
Yes i totally agree with everything you said. I dont think the OS has crashed once for me. It is very nice to be able to see all the 32 programs running, It makes it easy to know what to end and what not to without thinking about it.
There are a few programs that take advatage of 64 bit. ex. 7zip, HL2, Farcry, but hopefully in the future they will start makeing more and more programs 64 bit. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7http://google.com/search?q=Firefox builds SSE OR SSE2 OR SSE3
Wow I got undugg for helpful info. - movdqa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> No special build will ever make Firefox as fast as Opera. Rebuilding
> for special processor features (ie. SSE, SSE2, x86-64) isn't like a
> magical fairy that will put NOS into Firefox.
There is a cost to x64 in that addresses are larger and you tend to get
8-byte alignment instead of four-byte alignment. So your images can be
near twice as big and there's a cost to that. But simply recompiling
gives you the extra 8 SSE registers and an extra 8 general-purpose
registers. x86 has pretty big register pressure problems so the extra
8 registers are pretty useful.
-arch:SSE and -arch:SSE2 give you the movc instructions which can cut
down on branch mispredictions which are a big problem on NetBurst. It
is a smaller problem on the K8 architecture due to the shorter pipeline.
There are a number of microarchitectural improvements in Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest
that improve SIMD performance when those chips come out so it appears that Intel
is putting significant resources into improving SSE execution relative to non-SIMD
instructions.
Mozilla uses -O1 G6 optimization switches. There are benefits to using -O2 and
-GL. On VS2005, the G# switches went away. There is a noticeable performance
difference with -GL alone. PGO optimization is worth another 7% according to
my benchmarks.
> Now, for some actual information. These 64-bit versions won't increase
> your speed much. 64-bit processors aren't much faster for simple
> software like Firefox.
Firefox is 2 million lines of code. Do you consider that simple software?
I work on projects that are much larger than that but I wouldn't consider
2 million lines of code to be simple. How many lines of code does your
typical game occupy?
> Instead, you should look for unofficial builds at
> http://pryan.org/phoenix/ for features your processor supports that
> actually do make it faster. The SSE/2/3 instruction sets will help all
> software that utilize them a great deal.
pryan.org had a bunch of problems quite some time ago such that the forum
there is now gone and unrecoverable. And many unofficial builders have
moved off of pryan.org due to instability from time to time.
Why do you believe that the builds at vector64.com don't incorporate the
SIMD optimizations that you find on builds at pryan.org? There are some
interesting things that you can do with 64-bits in something like JPEG
decoding. The Huffman stage of JPEG decoding has traditionally been very
difficult to optimize as there are lookup tables that have to be used
and the algorithm in the IJG code doesn't lend itself to parallel processing.
Huffman uses an integer as a bit buffer in first-stage decompression. When
the integer doesn't hold enough bits, relatively expensive processing is
done to get more bits. Simply changing the buffer from 32-bits to 64-bits
results in a 3% performance improvement in overall JPEG rendering. The
IJG code is only part of the process of overall JPEG rendering as code
is moved around in buffers one or more times after decoding. Another thing
is that that Huffman uses a lot of variables and the extra registers
available on x64 decrease stack activity.
Memory Latency is typically 60 to 70 cycles. L2 is typically 10 to 12 cycles.
And L1 is low-single digits. Though a register-to-register move is typically
one cycle while a memory operation to L1 is three on K8. So you can see why
the integrated memory controller is a big deal. You can also see why L2 is
a big deal.
I think that running Win64 on 512 KB cache machines is not a good idea. I
prefer at least 1 MB L2 systems as you need more L2 for larger addresses
and objects.
> Call me a skeptic, but I dispute your claim that the difference in
> speed is incredible. For the most part, the move to 64bit only really
> increases the speed if you're moving lots of data around.
Mozilla Firefox does move a lot of data around.
x64 is an improvement if you have code segments that require a lot of
registers as stack operations take three to four times as long as
register to register operations. The extra sse registers are useful
if you're doing streaming operations where you have a lot of constants
as you can hold them in registers instead of having to get them from
memory. There are three stages in JPEG decompression where this is
useful. This is useful in PNG decompression as well.
> This is *exactly* the same as the other optimized Firefox builds.
Really? Have you reviewed all of the code changes that are bundled
into the Pentium 1, MMX, SSE, SSE2, G5 and Win64 builds optimized
builds?
> For example, what's the point of a 686 (i.e. Pentium II and higher)
> optimized Firefox build if FF isn't using operations that can be
> handled by SSE or MMX extensions?
Why do you think that FF isn't using operations that can be handled
by SSE or MMX instructions? Have you gone through the code?
> Similarly, the G4 and G5 optimized Firefox builds are pointless
> because Firefox simply doesn't have a need for these extended
> instruction sets.
Again, have you gone through the code? There is image processing
code in Mozilla that does stuff like flipping bytes or packing
three bytes into four and graphics code that works on rectangular
objects described with four variables where operations can be done
in parallel. These operations tend to require integer to floating
and floating to integer conversion which is a very expensive
operation to do one at a time but is much cheaper if you do four
at a time.
> Used 64bit Windows on a 3800+ X2 for a while. What a terrible
> operating system. More blue screens and lockups than WinME. But that's
> a different issue.
I've been using Win64 for almost two years. It has been more stable
than Win32 (XP) for me. Runs faster too.
> I really doubt that firefox is doing much with > 32 bit numbers. But
> good for you if you see a difference
Take a look at the encryption code. A lot of really gross machinations
to do 128-byte operations with 32-bit registers is painful to read.
Look at the Javascript Date Handling code. It stores dates as doubles
because 32-bit integer just doesn't hold enough data. The conversions
back and forth are also painful to look at.
> I tried Alpha Deer Park for a little while, but it seemed to be buggy.
It's a development version. Stuff gets fixed and broken every day.
> This is old ... Reported as old...
> these FF builds have been around since Firefox 0.9x (x86)
You're talking about Makoto Kato's builds. He hasn't released any
Firefox Release builds. The builds on vector64 are release builds. - Nodren, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5microsoft did a horrible time developing windows pro 64bit... so much that they let you demo it for over 6 months.
i tried it when i got my 64bit processor and hated it, half of the standard features you'd think a new windows os should have(ie the ability to hide desktop icons) dont exist. they also use a software buffer to translate 32bit apps into a 64bit environment to be compatable with the non existant intel 64bit chips(amd has its own 32bit support, which is why amd64 users dont have to run windows xp 64, yet if using windows64 we are still forced to use the software buffer). i think in general ms did a bad job with windowsxp64... so for me this news really doesnt mean much.... i just hope they correct it with vista. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I really doubt that firefox is doing much with > 32 bit numbers. But good for you if you see a difference.
- prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not the 64bit versus 32bit that makes 64bit apps faster. It's the fact that they have twice as many registers available. AMD bumped the number of General Purpose registers from 8 to 16.. but only 64bit code can use those registers.
However, the speed increase won't be noticable for a browser.. only something like a videogame. - CorneliusAgain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Have to add another comment that Windows XP 64 has been very very stable for me. The lack of some drivers for odd stuff like connecting my phone is the major problem, but it's gradually improving. Some of us simply need > 3GB for work purposes, so it's not a matter of choice and I'm glad it works well.
I just can't believe apple went to intel at 32 bit. Surely some of their higher end users must be pushing that limit in the same way CAD is. - PayneX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+364 bit web browsers are DEAD until Macromedia gets it's thumb out of it's butt, and starts compiling 64 bit flash plugin.
For years web developers have committed to flash, and Macromedia have not held their side of the bargain to support all platforms feasible.
Frankly i think all this web 2.0 stuff is a well deserved kick in the nuts to Macromedia. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@matts0344
Anyone who has ever emulated run a Nintendo-64 ROM in an emulator on a 32 bit processor has proven you wrong. A 64 bit application can be run on a 32 bit processor through emulation.
Maybe you were asleep in one of your intro level classes... Any computer that is capable of acting as a universal Turing machine can, in principle, perform any calculation that any other computer is capable of. - Jonno549, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2I'm on XP64 too, it's the best windows OS yet, very stable. As has been mentioned, drivers can be an issue, and I had a few teething problems, but now it's really stable.
- tupuli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I really doubt that firefox is doing much with > 32 bit numbers. But good for you if you see a difference."
64-bit ints won't speedup Firefox (it's unlikely they are used at all), but more registers might.
Having said, I wouldn't expect much. - UNL1M1T3D, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Yeah I am pretty sure you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I have a 3800+ X2 running Windows x64 as my native operating system and haven't seen a single blue screen since I got my machine up and running in January, and since that time I have installed and uninstalled a lot of programs and drivers. Like the person above me said the main problem is driver support, but everyday it is getting better. I had to DL some generic Atheros drivers for my wifi card to work, because DLink doesn't support my card in 64 bit. It is also a pain trying to find an anti virus and firewall that supports 64 bit. Right now I am using Avast Home Edition (free!) and Windows Firewall (good enough for right now). X64 is a great operating system and running it with a dual core just puts the icing on the cake. When I first got my machine up and running I wanted to try some games so I installed Far Cry, DL'd the 64 bit patch to take advantage of 64 bit operating system, and started to format my D: partition. After everything was installed I was actually able to play Far Cry while formatting my partition. It was a little choppy, but it was definitely playable. I can also play Far Cry while running virus scans which is something I never would have been able to do without having a dual core.
- thegsa, on 10/12/2007, -19/+21That Was Funny
- Lazybones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Probably a driver support issue more than anything.. Should be less of a problem with VISTA.
- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well I'm an ECE major and don't yet know much about computer architecture and OSs but I'm guessing that it would be nearly impossible to make a 64bit application on Windows XP 32-bit.
- Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Silly, quick question:
If I've got a 64-bit processor, but everything on my system is compiled for 32-bit with a 32-bit toolchain, can I still use things like 32-bit drivers, Flash, and other things that haven't been "ported" to 64-bit yet?
Just deciding on my next upgrade path... - mugdecoffee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am using this right now and I can honestly say that it speeds things up a lot. Pages load a little faster but the rendering is almost instant. I really recommend this if you have Windows x64. My only gripe is that by mouse's back button doesn't work with it.
On the Windows x64 speed debate, my computer speed up by about 20% roughly when I switched. It was a noticable differance but the main speed advantages come when you have a 64 bit compatible program or game. Like everyone else said, the drivers are a bit of a pain. I had to google around for about an hour to find compatible sound drivers. However, most major companys now offer 64 bit drivers so it is not too much of a problem. - mark13, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@RyeBrye:
"A 64 bit application can be run on a 32 bit processor through emulation. "
No. A 64 bit application can run on an /emulated/ 64 bit processor. Think about it for a moment, it's actually something totally different...
Besides, matts0344 said he doesn't think it can run in Win XP 32 bit (or any other 32 bit OS for that matter). So, even if you /would/ emulate a 64 bit processor (which still would have to be a 32 bit app to run on the physical 32 bit CPU), if you ran Win32 on it you couldn't run a 64 bit app.
To make a 64 bit app work (note how I avoided the "run on" here), you need a 64 bit OS on a (real or emulated) 64 bit CPU.
Just because you just learned what a Turing Machine is doesn't mean you should go around saying people slept in their "entry level" classes. - oringo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Only if you have a 64-bit build environment. Your 64-bit PC could very well be running a 32-bit environment.
- yoshihama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+364 bit WinXP has its issues, but those mostly center around the lack of 64-bit hardware drivers. Outside of that it works beautifully in my opinion. I've been using it on my primary computer since last July, and I can attest that it's fast and stable (meaning as stable as WinXP or Win2K).
- mccoma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I would expect some speedup from the increased number of registers in the 64-bit instruction set.
The rule for AMD/Intel: 32-bit slower than 64-bit + good compiler using all the extra registers - vidluther, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Too bad you need Windows XP 64bit to use this. Too bad you can't get MS to give you an upgrade to 64bit if you bought a 32 bit edition, and then upgraded your computer.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is