Chrome 64-bit Vs 32-bit For Windows – Is 64-bit Worth Installing?

Guy McDowell 27-09-2014

Chrome’s onward march to be the dominant web browser continues as Google recently released Chrome 64-bit for Windows. What this means is that this particular version of Chrome is optimized to run on Windows computers with 64-bit processors.


Who Can Use Chrome 64-bit?

Anyone who is using Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 on a computer with a 64-bit processor can use Chrome 64-bit. What’s the difference? I’m glad you asked. We can help you learn a lot more about the difference between a 32-bit and a 64-bit Windows operating system What's the Difference Between 32-Bit and 64-Bit Windows? What's the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows? Here's a simple explanation and how to check which version you have. Read More .


First, make sure your computer is running the 64-bit version of Windows. If you don’t know how to tell, here are four easy ways to know if you’re on a 64-bit version of Windows Do I Have 32-Bit or 64-Bit Windows? Here's How to Tell How can you tell if the Windows version you are using is 32-bit or 64-bit? Use these methods and learn why it is important too. Read More .

Why Chrome 64-Bit?

Why did Google need to make a version of Chrome specifically for 64-bit Windows installations? That’s a reasonable question and here are some reasonable answers:

  • Speed: 64-bit processors are faster than their comparable 32-bit counterparts. So why not make a browser that takes advantage of that? Google says they see an average of 25% improvement in performance, especially in visual elements.
  • Security: 64-bit Windows systems are a little more secure than their 32-bit counterparts. The 64-bit version of Chrome also utilizes Windows 8 features to help make it harder for hackers to target processes running on your computer. If they can’t find it, they can’t hack it.
  • Stability: Google reports that Chrome 64-bit crashes only half as much as the 32-bit Chrome. Which is pretty impressive, as they already had a very low crash rate.

Chrome 64-bit Look and Feel

Don’t worry about the 64-bit version being hard to get used to because of design or layout changes. There aren’t any. Google continues to show its strength in minimalist user interface design by sticking to the look and feel you already love in Chrome. The look is the same, the settings are the same, the layout is the same… nothing new to learn.



Is 64-bit Chrome Really Better?

That’s what you really want to know, right? Do the numbers support making the switch? Are you going to really benefit from it? Is it faster? If you just load it on your computer and start working with it, it might seem faster. But how can you really be sure unless you have solid numbers from Chrome 32-bit to back it up? That’s why we’ve done some testing.

The Comparison Test: 64-bit Vs 32-bit

Testing was performed on Chrome 32-bit on a laptop running Windows 8.1 64-bit with no extensions enabled. Then Chrome 32-bit was uninstalled and Chrome 64-bit installed on the same laptop. Then the same tests were run. Everything else on the laptop stayed the same, so it was a static environment.

Chrome Browser Loading Time

Let’s look at the numbers. The first test is the Application Loading Time Test using a program called AppTimer AppTimer: Get Start Up Times for Benchmarking Purposes [Windows] Whether we do it as a hobby or just out of plain curiosity, benchmarking has become almost an art. People always try to find the best ways to benchmark a piece of software or hardware... Read More . Both versions of Chrome were loaded and unloaded 10 times at 1000 ms intervals. Initially, Chrome 64-bit loaded faster than Chrome 32, but in the end Chrome 64-bit seemed to really slow down.



Use Of System Resources

Let’s take a look at how the two versions use system resources. The homepage was loaded, Chrome was allowed to finish loading and stabilize, then the system resources used with each version of Chrome was recorded.


Chrome 32-bit required just a little more than half (59.5 MB) of the memory that Chrome 64-bit required (111.6 MB). The difference in CPU usage was negligible. This should not be surprising and is no need for concern. Most 64-bit Windows computers will have more than enough RAM to cover the difference.


Benchmark Tests

Peacekeeper, FutureMark’s JavaScript engine testing tool, was first used to test the two versions of Chrome. A JavaScript engine testing tool, is only going to tell us how well the browser deals with JavaScript. That’s important because so many functions of a website rely on JavaScript – animations, video, calculations, and working with data in general. If you want to learn more about just what JavaScript is What is JavaScript and How Does It Work? [Technology Explained] Read More , check out our article on that.



Peacekeeper determined that Chrome 32-bit actually performed slightly better than Chrome 64-bit overall. Most of the categories were close, however text parsing was the only area that Chrome 64-bit excelled in over Chrome 32-bit. The scores are close enough that the average person is not likely to notice a significant difference between the two Chrome versions.


Google’s Octane 2.0 is another JavaScript engine test. Using Octane 2.0, Chrome 64-bit did perform better than Chrome 32-bit. Many of the categories of testing where fairly close. Again, the difference in results is likely not to be noticeable to the average user.



HTML5Test checks a browser to see how compliant it is to HTML 5 standards. These standards determine what kind of functionality a website can have using just the HTML language – the basic language of the Web. Many of the cool effects, and even video, on the web is now driven by HTML5 What Is HTML5, And How Does It Change The Way I Browse? [MakeUseOf Explains] Over the past few years, you may have heard the term HTML5 every once in a while. Whether you know anything about web development or not, the concept can be somewhat nebulous and confusing. Obviously,... Read More . The more components a browser supports, the better your Web experience will be. Chrome 32-bit and 64-bit scored identically.




That’s due to the fact that both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions tested are from the same roll-out of Chrome, number 37. Although there is no difference between the Chrome 32-bit and Chrome 64-bit in this department, it’s worth noting that Chrome outperforms the other major web browsers for supporting HTML5 standards. See how Chrome compares to Firefox and Opera Browser Wars: Firefox vs. Chrome vs. Opera, The Definitive Benchmark If you could only choose one browser, which one would it be? Which is best: Firefox, Chrome or Opera? We'll show you. Read More in general, if you’re interested.

Is Chrome 64-bit Worth Using?

Chrome 32-bit and 64-bit versions for Windows are so close in terms of speed and webpage rendering performance that it’s hard to really call one a clear winner over the other. In the end, it comes down to other capabilities of the browsers – stability and security.

We have to take Google’s word on the stability. Testing that sort of thing takes an awful long time and is beyond the scope of this article.

The security aspect is definitely better in Chrome 64-bit. By being able to utilize 64-bit processing, Chrome 64-bit is better able to protect against attacks. An analogy would be having a new machine gun that shoots twice as fast as the old machine gun. 64-bit processing is just that much faster and can do more.

Based on stability and security, that should be enough reason to upgrade to Chrome 64-bit for your Windows 64-bit computer. Just don’t expect to be blown away with speed increases.

What’s your opinion? Is Chrome’s 64-bit browser worth it for you? Let us know in the comments.

Image Credits: Boxing Ring, Boxing Gloves via Shutterstock, Chrome Logo via Softpedia, Google Chrome Icon, Windows 8 Logo via Wikipedia.

Related topics: 64-Bit, Google Chrome.

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Whatsapp Pinterest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Weiss
    February 19, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    Why would you take Google's word for stability and security when they spoke TOTAL BULLSHIT on performance? 25% is an absolute joke. They're obviously lying and retards buy right into it. For them 64 bit is not for functionality but for sex appeal. Bloat for retards.

    Your security analogy is bullshit. If it was that much faster, you'd get bigger performance.
    The *only* extra security it gets is ASLR which is quite bogus these days, however 64-bit BRINGS its own set of vulnerabilities. For one if you go to a site like, your entire PC's cache will crash and bring down your PC to a screeching halt. If the app was 32-bit, it would crash after 3GB, which won't kill your system assuming you have more than 4GB of RAM. In this case, 32-bit app = more secure.

    Nobody mentions 64-bit gets new vulnerabilities, because they have their sex appeal agenda. YES SECURITY EXPLOITS HAPPEN BECAUSE OF BADLY WRITTEN CODE. And badly written code is EASIER to write in 64-bit than 32-bit. They cherry pick only what they want to hear. Hypocritical retards.


    Morons wouldn't dare to recommend/switch to 32-bit if there's a vulnerability only in their 64-bit shit, but if it was the other way around, OMG 32-bit sucks right? What sucks are morons thinking 64 is better for most applications when it's total bullshit. The only few apps which need heavy big number-crunching or more than 4GB of RAM are the only ones which benefit from 64-bit.

    Don't say more registers, that's 2004, nowadays most processors rename registers in microcode already and have much more physical registers than the ones addressable at the instruction set level.

    Whenever someone talks smack or tries to deprecate 32-bit version tell them some facts straight up cause they're full of shit. Their agenda is different than what they tell you about it. 25% performance? Perfect example, pathetic.

  2. S Bharadwaj
    September 24, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    i installed 64bit. it installed in programfiles(x86). how?

  3. John
    August 3, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Chrome 64-bit runs way worse for me, and for some reason, also on every computer I've ever seen chrome 64-bit on, it seems to use up an insane amount of resources in terms of the CPU, and can heavily affect battery life of a laptop (while using chrome 64-bit obviously). The high amount of CPU taxation is true for Mac, Windows, and Linux on 64-bit systems. Also on Windows, the application is installed as if it was a 32-bit program... which could explain the extreme inefficiency and high power usage of chrome 64-bit. It is installed in "program files (x86)" Which is only for 32-bit programs. If you don't believe me about the high power usage, try loading a 4k (60fps) youtube video in chrome 64, then try doing the same thing in chrome 32... for me there was a massive difference on all the systems I've tested. the CPU usage can be something like 70% on chrome 64-bit, and about 8% on chrome 32-bit

  4. Nicholas
    April 1, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    Ever since I switched to 64-bit chrome, my average memory usage (system wide) actually went down by half.

  5. choppergirl
    March 19, 2016 at 10:22 am

    So basically, Chrome x64 is a dog...

    • Guy McDowell
      March 30, 2016 at 12:06 am

      Yep. I'm finding Chrome in general is getting heavy and tedious.

  6. Charlie
    March 3, 2016 at 4:29 am

    What about the plug-ins and extensions? Are some of them incompatible to the 64 bit version?

    • Guy McDowell
      March 4, 2016 at 8:17 pm

      There are far too many for anyone to say with certainty. The majority of them should be fine though.

  7. Jason
    December 20, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    The difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Google Chrome should be negligible for one very simple reason: The 32-bit version also takes advantage of SSE2 instructions.

    Bit-width and memory advantages are usually mentioned but the MOST OVERLOOKED FACTOR in the 64-bit vs 32-bit argument has been software optimization.

    SSE2 instuctions were added to CPU architectures in the early 2000's because the existing instruction sets weren't efficient at certain computational tasks - particularly those required for multimedia applications. 64-bit CPU's became mainstream around the same time and these included SSE2.

    For a while though (and in some cases still today) software providers needed to remain compatible with a wide variety of older hardware platforms. This meant compiling their 32-bit applications to support a lowest common instruction set that pre-dated SSE2. On the other hand, 64-bit systems by default had an SSE2 capable CPU. Therefore software providers could safely compile 64-bit versions of their software to use the extended SSE2 instruction set. On the same hardware this would lead to performance gains over the 32-bit version.

    Nowadays there are very few people using a system that does not have a 64-bit/SSE2 capable CPU. As a result many 32-bit applications, including Google Chrome, have a minimum system requirement that includes a "Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports SSE2". This bridges the performance gap between 32-bit and 64-bit because both versions are utilising the same instruction set.

    FYI: Firefox "recommends" a processor that supports SSE2 but remains backward compatible with older hardware. Pale Moon (based on Firefox) on the other hand, "allows for specific optimizations in the building process that actually uses the capabilities of the computer hardware it runs on (specifically: advanced processing instructions) and gears the machine code at the assembly level specifically towards certain generations of processors, as opposed to trying to compromise for different ways of working with old hardware." (quote taken from Pale Moon's Technical Details web page).

  8. Anonymous
    August 6, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Some deeper details:

    The Octane performance test did show 64-bit just barely beating 32-bit, but:

    1) Your test showed 64-bit as being slower across the board, except 4 tests: the 2 Splays and 2 Mandreels. These 2 tests are tests of jerkiness, basically - that is, the browser needs to periodically freeze to cleanup some of its work. How long does it need to freeze? Long freezes over 250ms are noticeable to the user. Short freezes are unnoticeable or hard to notice. The much higher scores for 64-bit show it's a lot less jerky. This is likely because the cleanup is being done by 64-bit code on a 64-bit OS, or to put it another way, the memory being cleaned up is formatted in the same format as the CPU natively speaks. Simpler job, faster to finish.

    But it needs to be noted the rest of the numbers here all say way slower performance on 64-bit, ESPECIALLY all the render tests. Since Google claims a 25% increase on rendering, you and their numbers strongly disagree. You ought to dig deeper at that discrepancy.

    2) 64-bit is nothing like a machine gun that shoots twice as fast. 64-bit is about bit-width, not speed. That's why 64-bit machines are not 2x as fast as 32-bit.

    This is a better metaphor: Suppose you have one of those silly cheese slicers, with a bunch of little blades that cuts a slab of cheese into a bunch of slices, by pressing down on the slicer until it reaches the table. Suppose all your blocks of cheese are the same width as the slicer. One push on the slicer, one sliced block of cheese.

    Now suppose you need to cut blocks of cheese that are twice as wide. You'll need to use the slicer twice per block, unless you buy a slicer that's twice as wide. These slicers are your 32-bit and 64-bit programs.

    But the things programs need to think about can be 2-bit, 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, or 64-bit (occasionally even larger). Think of these as very small blocks of cheese ranging up to as large as the largest slicer. For the smaller blocks of cheese, it really doesn't matter which slicer you use - you still get one push one completely sliced block of cheese. The larger cheese slicer offers you no benefit - except when you happen to come across a giant block (64-bits wide) of cheese.

    The slowdown of 64-bit comes from the waste of putting for example a 2-bit number into a 64-bit block of memory. To expand on the cheese metaphor, imagine you had a lot of automated slicers in a confined amount of space. You can use twice as many of the smaller slicers as the large. If you're only slicing a little bit of cheese - computers spend most of their time idle - the difference doesn't matter. And, if you're only slicing large blocks of cheese, the big slicers will still be faster. But in every other scenario, the little slicers win.

    3) The security comes from 2 things:

    * The fact there's more space to randomly put stuff. It means you can be more random about where the really dangerous stuff sits. The most common virus uses an Overflow, where you write to a location in memory, and the thing next to it, that you want to attack, gets overwritten because you send more data than can fit in the benign location you asked to store stuff in. If that extra data is the code for your virus, and you can run it later, bam, you're in. By Chrome spraying randomly in a large memory space, virus authors now can't rely on vulnerable stuff in memory sitting right next to a memory structure they figured out how to overflow.

    * The NX bit. Only 64-bit CPUs have a proper NX bit, which marks areas of memory as No eXecute. That means even if a virus author is able to get their virus loaded into memory, they often can't run it because the area they snuck into has been marked as data, not CPU instructions. When they try the NX trap is sprung and the program crashes, or sometimes even catches it and warns the user a virus tried to take over their machine.

    • Anonymous
      October 9, 2015 at 2:41 am

      thank you for the well written write up, very informative.

  9. Anonymous
    July 24, 2015 at 9:40 am

    I am currently using Waterfox and i want to know which have one has greater performance waterfox or 64-bit chrome. Waterfox often lags when it comes to content enrich page or you scroll to much on the webpage. P.S I am using a laptop with 8.1 and 4gb ram

    • Guy McDowell
      July 24, 2015 at 9:33 pm

      Hi Ali,

      The only way to find out is to test them for yourself. You can use the same tools and methods I used in this article to compare the two browsers.

      There are more comprehensive ways to test and compare browsers, but I don't see the sense in putting that much effort into testing every web browser or variant that comes along.

  10. Dale
    April 9, 2015 at 10:19 am

    Chrome is stopping support/ability for java, silverlight, unity, and some others, so the java benchmark is a moot point; am currently looking in to other chrome like browsers for windows to see if they will still support those.

  11. John S
    April 6, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    So I have to say with my HP Stream that actually has a 64 Bit Windows 8.1 I tried the 64 bit Chrome. Given my Stream 11 only has 2 GB of RAM. The obvious issue with 64 Bit Chrome was how it consumed much of that RAM just opening Chrome up. At first it was not bad on a simple web page like Google search. But go to a content enrich page plus adding a tab or two and WOW. So I would have to say, if you have limited RAM you best stay with the 32 bit version for now. Maybe as time passes maybe Chrome 64 bit will get better. I was really surprised given that many Chromebook's have very little in RAM or hardware power? I was surprised how efficient IE 11 was versus Chrome on such a cheap notebook as a Stream. No doubt Chrome is a very good browser in either 32 or 64 bit. But as many browsers do, they get bloated as they age.

    • Guy
      April 8, 2015 at 12:31 am

      Interesting. Thank you, John, for sharing that.

      I can't think of a really good reason that a browser should take that much RAM. Especially if it has no extensions or customizations. Not everyone has Google Engineer money and can get the latest and greatest computers.

  12. gman
    March 17, 2015 at 7:23 am

    i get about 60 mb in 64bit chrome, and 110 in 32bit. think you got it twisted there partner.

    • Guy
      March 17, 2015 at 2:20 pm

      Not sure what you mean.

      Mariah is saying the same thing as you - that she gets better speeds with the 32-bit.

      All I'm suggesting is that if a person wants the 64-bit Chrome, maybe they should wait a while until there's a new release that may address these issues.

  13. Mariah
    March 13, 2015 at 12:21 am

    I was just recommended switching to 64-bit Chrome and wow. When I say wow, I do not mean it in a good way. The entire program was lagging. Even typing in the address bar made took so long that by the time what I typed came up, it was lacking proper spaces between words, etc. There were times it would just blip out and completely shut down in the middle of tasks.

    I returned to 32-bit and the world is right again. I might consider it again if they were to fix whatever that problem was. I updated everything that needed updating - it just didn't work for me. *le sigh*

    • Guy
      March 13, 2015 at 4:27 pm

      Hi Mariah,

      Sorry to hear that! Maybe give it another shot in a few months when there's a new stable release.

  14. Sam
    February 26, 2015 at 3:35 am

    Any way to switch from the 64bit version to 32bit while on 64 bit or do I have to completely uninstall the 64ver? Would like to see if some plugins work better in 32.

    • Guy
      February 26, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      You might be able to have both installed on the same computer. I did. I don't recall if I had to do anything special though.

      The official Google Chrome Help Forum is the best place to find that answer.

  15. Guy
    February 13, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    Hmm. Odd. Chrome 32-bit should not have maxed out your CPU, especially on the kind of system you're mentioning.

    Windows 64-bit has a 32-bit emulator called Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit ( WOW64). Perhaps something wasn't playing nice between Chrome and WOW64, or something about the WOW64 was corrupted or off.

    I'm just glad Chrome 64-bit is working well for you. :)

  16. Jkund17
    February 13, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    I think the biggest thing that most people are overlooking is that Chrome 32bit can only be utilised by a 64bit system so much. For example when using Chrome 32bit it constantly max out my cpu even though I have a quad-core 64bit system. With Chrome 64bit, my cpu can actually manage chrome like I thought it was all along. And now I can have multiple tabs open and still have plenty of cpu processing power left. Thanks for the article!

  17. Rafe
    January 16, 2015 at 12:32 am

    Well Guy after seeing all the confusion on the internet and seeing tutorials on how to install it and all the vendors that are trying to deceive the less observant computer users and just the volume of stuff that is associated with this new version nope not going to open up any cans of worms. I think I will wait a while, let the smoke clear, and then maybe install it, maybe......Rafe

    • Guy
      January 19, 2015 at 6:10 pm

      Hi Rafe,

      Thank you for the compliment.

      Yep I can't really blame you for not wanting to step into this right now. I'm sure that pretty soon there will be a 64-bit version that really is super-stable and worth installing. Never buy the beta! ;)

  18. Rafe
    January 16, 2015 at 12:09 am

    Wow Guy you sure did a lot of work on this and thank you, thank you very much. I am going to try it because of the greater security and the graphic stability increase. I am using Google Earth with AutoCAD Civil 3D Plexearth plugin. And it seems more and more is going dBase and so I see a lot of shp- files and graphics being off the internet coming sooner than people may wish.

    If it doesn't do me any good well ok I have a pretty powerful computer and if it does me good I probably won't even be able to tell. However any edge I can get over hackers and graphics failures will be very much appreciated and worth it in time savings, maybe.......

  19. sttv
    January 5, 2015 at 9:23 pm

    Chome 32 -> 64 bit switch brought nothing more than noticable RAM utilization increase for my i5, 4 GB RAM laptop. I recommend not to upgrade if HDD disk drive is used - using 64 bit Chrome will increase memory swap operations thus significantly slowing down your system regardles of how much RAM your system has installed.

    • choppergirl
      March 19, 2016 at 10:34 am

      Yeah, Chrome x64 is a pig.

      I found compared to Chrome x32 version, Chome x64 used 2x CPU cycles and about 120% more ram.

  20. Mitch
    December 31, 2014 at 11:59 am

    There are lots of video streaming websites that won't work with Chrome 64 bit, DishEverywhere for example and others. Not faster maybe a bit better in terms of crashes. I have to use IE 32 bit for my heavy duty video streaming, not Chrome 64

    • Guy
      December 31, 2014 at 12:38 pm

      Hi Mitch,

      Thank you for the heads-up on that. I wonder if it isn't a setting in Chrome 64 related to it's video settings.

      Some people have been able to solve video playback issues by disabling the HTML5 player, or disabling the pepflashplayer.dll in chrome://plugins/

      For a couple seconds effort, it might be worth a shot.

  21. Guy
    December 29, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Odd, I haven't come across that issue yet. Then again, I've seldom ever had Chrome 32 crash on me either.
    I'm not sure what the fix would be, but try limiting the number of Chrome extensions that you use.
    Also try clearing the browser's cache and history. If that's all piled up, it could cause problems.
    Other than that, I can't suggest much without seeing the computer. I hope this helps!

  22. pbug56
    December 28, 2014 at 4:31 am

    I find Chrome to be a ram and cpu hog in general, certainly no less so in 64 bits on Win 7. But to my surprise, while Chrome 32 would crash mainly when I did a file upload or download, Chrome 64 crashes every time you shrink it and walk a way for a while, and frequently when you are just trying to look at a page. It is very, very unstable, far less stable, for instance, then Windows 10 is, at least on some systems. One note; Chrome 64 crashes on every system I've used it on, but it is worse on an HP laptop with ATI video.

    • James Harrison
      April 19, 2015 at 4:03 pm

      answer : NEW P.C.

  23. Guy
    November 13, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Alex, thank you for that! I hadn't had the time to find Bill a good answer, so thank you.

    I love it when readers can help each other and we all learn something new.

  24. Bill
    November 11, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Do you think Google is saying that 64 bit safer is because the browser no longer allows Java Applets (signed or unsigned) to run? From what you've written and from my recent experiences debugging running 32 and 64 bit Java on the same machine, I plan on not upgrading to 64 bit browsers for a while. Perhaps I might wait until 32 bit Java is no longer supported.

    • Alex
      November 11, 2014 at 11:04 pm

      Hey Bill,

      Java applets are disabled (click to run) by default in x64 builds of Chrome official. You can however set it to do the same in x86 builds of Chrome official by heading over to the chrome://flags and adjusting from there. Take care!

  25. Guy
    October 19, 2014 at 1:36 am

    Did you uninstall the 32-bit first? Go into your Control Panel and then Programs and Features. See if there are two Google Chrome's installed. If so, uninstall the 32-bit one.

  26. Daniel
    October 14, 2014 at 10:14 pm

    Hello, one question. I had Google Chrome 32 bit installed before I downloaded the 64 bit.
    When I downloaded and installed the 64 bit, it keeps on opening the 32 bit. Does anyone know why? Do I have to erase the 32 bit?

  27. Guy
    October 2, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Interesting. I wonder why the Octane and Peacekeeper scores were so low.
    That was for Opera, right?

    Highlights the point though, that there is a web browser for just about anyone's needs and their isn't really a one-size-fits-all. More like a one-size-fits-most at best.

  28. Greg Zeng
    September 29, 2014 at 10:30 am

    TESTED my browser on my DELL XPS-15 notebook (i7, 16gb RAM, nVidia).
    "You are using Opera 12.17 on Windows 8", "Your browser scores
    392 out of 555 points"

    [Broken Link Removed]
    Octane Score: 5143
    2625, HTML5 Capabilities 4/7

    Quickly tested other browsers:
    " Maxthon 4.4.2 on Windows 8.1", "YOUR BROWSER SCORES 513 OUT OF 555 POINTS",

    " Internet Explorer 11.0 on Windows 8.1" (it's really SlimBrowser), 370 out of 555 points

    "Firefox 32.0 on Windows 8.1", 475 out of 555 points

    "Firefox 32.0 on Windows 8.1" (really Cyberfox, 64bit), 475 out of 555 points

    " Chrome Dev 40.0.2172.0 on Windows 8.1" (really Chromium), 508 OUT OF 555 POINTS

    (editor: this is the polished version of my previous post)

  29. Greg Zeng
    September 29, 2014 at 10:24 am

    TESTED my browser on my DELL XPS-15 notebook (i7, 16gb RAM, nVidia).
    "You are using Opera 12.17 on Windows 8", "Your browser scores
    392 out of 555 points"

    "You are using Maxthon 4.4.2 on Windows 8.1", "YOUR BROWSER SCORES 513 OUT OF 555 POINTS", "YOUR BROWSER SCORES 508 OUT OF 555 POINTS"

    "You are using Internet Explorer 11.0 on Windows 8.1" (it's really SlimBrowser), 370 out of 555 points

    "Firefox 32.0 on Windows 8.1", 475 out of 555 points

    "Firefox 32.0 on Windows 8.1" (really Cyberfox, 64bit), 475 out of 555 points

    "You are using Chrome Dev 40.0.2172.0 on Windows 8.1", 508 OUT OF 555 POINTS

    [Broken Link Removed]
    Octane Score: 5143
    2625, HTML5 Capabilities 4/7

  30. Tinkicker
    September 28, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    What I meant to say above is that I've never had an instance of failure running my Win 7 programs on my Vista machine. Sorry.

  31. Tinkicker
    September 28, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    There's never been an instance for me in running the same programs that I use on my Win 7 machines, on the lone older Vista machine we still have. My son uses it exclusively for iTunes, but I, being OCD in so many ways, like to have every machine I own loaded for bear with the same software, so everything gets treated to a Vista test at least once lol.
    Chrome 64 has performed excellently for me on every machine, and I can definitely detect speed improvements on several sites I use regularly. My one and only quarrel with Chrome is over memory usage. There has got to be a way for such an intelligently-designed piece of kit to clear tab memory when not being directly used!

    • Guy M
      September 29, 2014 at 11:07 pm

      Excellent! Thank you Tinkicker, that's good to know that it does well on Vista.

      There are certain things that utilize JavaScript that should run better in Chrome 64-bit on a 64-bit Windows machine. I think as more sites continue to utilize more HTML5 and JS techniques, the benefits of Chrome 64-bit should become more apparent.

      I agree about memory usage. I'm sure there is something that can be done. I'm going to have to look into that.

  32. Chinmay S
    September 28, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    I hardly use Chrome so 32 or 64 bit doesn't matter to me. And by the way, I have a 32 bit Windows 7 installed on a 64 bit machine, so I can't even install it.

    • Iwan Nagag
      October 23, 2014 at 7:01 pm

      I don't own a cement mixer. I drive a Honda Accord. And by the way, I have a box of tissue paper on my desk so I can't even install it.

    • Guy
      October 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm

      Iwan, oh! Oh! I know the answer to this one!!!!

      What are, "Things that don't matter."? ;)

  33. Anonymous
    September 28, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    chrome 64bit crashes every other day for me on the same sites as 32bit before, which rarely if ever crashed....

  34. Alan
    September 28, 2014 at 6:43 am

    Been running the 64bit version for a while now, dont see any difference at all.

  35. Howard B
    September 28, 2014 at 4:47 am

    "Anyone who is using Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 on a computer with a 64-bit processor can use Chrome 64-bit." I'm not surprise that Windows XP X64 is not supported, but why not Vista? Vista hasn't reached the end of its extended support yet (4/11/2017).

    • blueman 24
      September 28, 2014 at 7:46 am

      Vista was a epic fail. Even more than Windows 8, which is quite good actually.

    • Howard B
      September 28, 2014 at 3:16 pm

      I'm not saying Vista was *good* - I'm pointing out the fact that the article does not mention the ability to run Chrome 64-bit on Vista 64, which is not actually all that different from Windows 7 or 8.

    • Guy M
      September 28, 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Biggest reason I didn't mention Vista was that the Chrome 64-bit documentation I looked at didn't mention it.

  36. AlS
    September 28, 2014 at 12:35 am

    Tried it this morning - broke Citrix Receiver! Had to uninstall Chrome 64 and re-download Chrome 32

    • Guy M
      September 28, 2014 at 6:36 pm

      Interesting. You might want to report that to Chrome.

  37. Ben S
    September 27, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    I installed Chrome 64 bit as soon as I heard it was available. My computer has 8 GB of RAM, and while I wasn't having any problems with Chrome I wanted to test it out.

    I haven't noticed a huge difference so far, but it's definitely been stable. So at worst, it's been the same as 32-bit Chrome!

    • Aditya
      September 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm

      Please help me with a couple of questions:
      Did you install on a windows 7 64 bit machine ?
      Can you simultaneously use both chrome 32 and chrome 64 ?
      Chrome 64 is still a beta, so I am not sure how reliable it is for secure financial website transactions ? Anyone?

    • Ben S
      September 29, 2014 at 2:18 pm

      Yes, I'm using 64-bit Windows 7. Just so you're aware, if you have more than 4 GB of RAM, your system has to be 64-bit.

      Installing Chrome x64 replaced its x86 variant for me, but I imagine if you really wanted to you could run both.

      Chrome 64 is actually out of beta now. This just happened, hence this article. I wasn't using it when it was in beta.

    • Guy M
      September 29, 2014 at 11:00 pm

      I did use it when it was still in beta (Canary). You can run Canary 64-bit alongside stable Chrome 32-bit, however Canary 64-bit has other features in it that aren't stable, so it isn't a good point of reference for Chrome 64-bit stable.

  38. Hingle MCringleberry
    September 27, 2014 at 5:35 pm

    useless because chrome is a bloated piece of crap. ie and firefox ftw!

    • Anonymous
      September 28, 2014 at 12:01 am

      wot to use then???

    • Guy
      October 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm

      And yet you still felt the need to read this article. Thank you!

  39. likefunbutnot
    September 27, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    If your browser workload regularly exceeds 2GB, it's probably worth getting a 64-bit browser. I think Waterfox is a better deal because Mozilla's add-ons are a lot more capable, particularly in areas related to privacy and security, than those available for Chrome,

    I've observed that Chrome is much, much worse about RAM utilization as the number of tabs in use grows, and I've also observed that some pretty common web sites (e.g. Tumblr) by their nature frequently cause RAM utilization to skyrocket. Getting proper 64-bit browsing support is going to be a bigger and bigger issue for many people.

    • densou
      September 28, 2014 at 3:18 pm

      Palemoon, that's it. The ONE and ONLY Firefox's fork. Not those cheap 64-bit recompiled builds of Firefox named something+fox.
      Ain't spamming, just try it for yourself :) Meh current regular Firefox, 100% Chrome look-alike -.-

    • Ashish
      October 23, 2014 at 7:40 am


    • Guy
      October 24, 2014 at 12:09 pm

      I was big on Firefox for quite a while, but got away from it. Your suggestions of other forks of Firefox might bring me back to it.