Ok is it worth it switching from a 32 bit browser to a 64 bit

>>55120018
Why the fuck are you using 32-bit anything that also has a 64-bit version when using a 64-bit machine?

>is it worth to use an outdated standard just because it still works?

You should compile it to use instructions specific to your CPU.

It just doesn't fucking matter, to be honest. The 64 bit browser will actually perform worse by a few percentage points (anyone that tells you otherwise is a fucking liar and you can verify that shit yourself). 32 bit code is just too fucking optimized because of maturity and 64 bit code just ain't there yet on any platform.

Seriously, it doesn't fucking matter on modern hardware, use whatever one floats your boat/squeaks your sneaker/straightens your pants/gives you that funny feeling/etc.

>>55120079

That means absolutely fucking nothing because modern processors are both 32 bit and 64 bit capable.

>the good old days of DEC Alpha pure 64-bit CPUs and Itaniums are long history

>chrome alone swallows so much RAM as a downtown alley stripper

Man that's one hell of a sentence. In your town you have a web browser that masquerades as a stripper but strips in alleys? Are you saying the stripper thing is just a cover so it can swallow your RAM? Who the fuck brings their computer to see strippers? Is English your first language?

>>55120083
>32 but code is more optimized because of maturity and 64 bit code just ain't there yet
Nigger what are you saying?
x86_64 has literally the same ISA as x86, I can't see how 64 bit code will be any "less optimized" than 32 bit code.

File: Nope.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>55120120

Then do this test:

Go grab the Firefox source code, compile it for 32 bit and 64 bit versions, then test both in common browser benchmarks.

I fucking bet you your miserable god damned soul that the 32 bit browser will perform better in the benchmarks.

>inb4 "but but but the benchmarks are 32 bit so so so that's why the numbers are higher for 32 bit code.."
>Nope

>>55120152
>people write 2 different versions of high level code, one for 32 bit and one for 64 bit
Dude what?

https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/48.0b1/source/

I'm thinking you're talking about compiler optimizations, in which case, it's got nothing to do with how Mozilla writes their code.

>>55120105
Are you still a virgin? Or do you pretend to be one

I wish I could switch to firefox.

But it dislikes youtube streams. They get stuttering and crackling audio.

And nightly gives me black screens.

>>55120040
Well I got a 64-bit dick but i still fuck your 2-bit ho mum