Like clockwork, Google has delivered its latest version of its Chrome Web browser for Linux, Mac, and Windows users, but it's the 64-bit Windows users who will get the most from this latest upgrade: Chrome 37.

64-bit Chrome for Windows is the best Windows Web browser available today.​

Will Harris, a Google Software Engineer, blogged, "64-bit Chrome offers many benefits for speed, stability and security." While 64-bit Chrome has long been available for Linux, this is the first 64-bit version in Chrome's stable channel. The 64-bit Chrome for Mac OS X is now in beta.

Harris added that "The native 64-bit version of Chrome has improved speed on many of our graphics and media benchmarks. For example, the VP9 codec that’s used in High Definition YouTube videos shows a 15% improvement in decoding performance." So, is it really faster?

To find out, I ran benchmarks on 32-bit Chrome 36m the new 64-bit Chrome 37, and 64-bit Internet Explorer (IE) 11 on a Gateway DX4710 running 64-bit Windows 7 SP1. You must be running 64-bit Windows to run a 64-bit application, but you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit system.

By default, IE 11 on the desktop runs its tabs as 32-bit processes. That's because historically, 64-bit IE runs far more slowly than 32-bit IE. In addition, Microsoft runs IE 11 processes as 32-bit for compatibility with older plugins. If you choose to run 64-bit IE, however, you'll be operating with more security because this also invokes Enhanced Protected Mode. For these benchmarks, to make sure IE showed to its best advantage, I ran IE in its default 32-bit mode.

My benchmark PC is powered by a 2.5-GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor and has 6GB of RAM and an Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 3100 for graphics. It's hooked to the Internet via a Netgear Gigabit Ethernet switch, which, in turn, is hooked up to a 100Mbps (Megabit per second) cable Internet connection. For the benchmarks, I used Sunspider 1.02; Futuremark's Peacekeeper; Octane 2.0, Google's own Web browser benchmark; and Mozilla's Kraken 1.1 benchmark.

On Sunspider, which is a popular, simple JavaScript benchmark, the lowest scores are the best. In this benchmark, IE 11 was the clear winner at 184.3-milliseconds. It was followed by Chrome 36 at 264.3-milliseconds and the newest 64-bit Chrome at 288.3-milliseconds. Clearly, for this test anyway, the new Chrome isn't that fast.

With Futuremark's PeaceKeeper, which examines almost all aspects of a browser's end-user performance, it was a different story. On this benchmark, where higher scores are better, Chrome 37 won with a score of 2,409, well ahead of the 32-bit Chrome 36's 2,214, and far, far ahead of IE 11's 1,632.

In Kraken, which gives browsers' JavaScript engines a good work-out, low scores are again better than higher ones. Here, the new Chrome once more won by a nose, with a score of 2,638.5-milliseconds over Chrome 36's 2661-milliseconds. IE 11, with 5,136.3, was in the rear.

Finally on Octane 2.0, Google's house Web browser benchmark, where higher is better, it should come as no surprise that Chrome 37 was the victor with a score of 13,156, well over Chrome 36's 12,895 and way ahead of IE 11's 8,142.

Google also claims that the new 64-bit Chrome displays high-definition (HD) video better. While I was unable to benchmark this, it certainly appeared to my eyes that YouTube HD videos, such as The Emmys 2014: Robin Williams Tribute (Highlight) and the Homeland Season 4: Teaser Trailer appeared quite sharp without any frame drop-outs.

For now, the 64-bit version of Chrome is optional. If you want to use it, click on the new “Windows 64-bit” link on the Chrome download page. Harris noted, however, that one "significant known issue is the lack of 32-bit NPAPI [Netscape Plugin Application Programming Interface] plugin support." NPAPI is an obsolete technology and Google is depreciating it, but there are still a handful of older Web services and out-of-date Web sites that use it.

The 32-bit channel will remain fully supported for the foreseeable future. In addition, Chrome will continue to support 32-bit plugins until NPAPI is removed from Chrome.

Regardless of whether you use 32- or 64-bit Chrome on Windows, the new Chrome now supports DirectWrite support on Windows for improved font rendering. DirectWrite has been around since Windows Vista, but Google had continued to use the mid-80's Graphics Device Interface (GDI) for font rendering. That was fine in the day when VGA's 640x480 resolution was the best you could expect, but it's completely out of date today.

Not everyone is happy with this change. Some users are reporting that with DirectWrite, "Chrome appears zoomed in and blurry, including the header bar (address bar, tabs, bookmarks bar)." I was unable to reproduce this problem on any of my Windows 7 or 8 systems. I strongly suspect this problem is because of a combination of individual factors rather than a Chrome bug.

One user has suggested that if this happens to you, you can try "Right-clicking the Chrome shortcut and then click Properties. On the Compatibility tab, select Disable Display Scaling On High DPI Settings, and then click OK. This causes the text in the application to appear clearer." This fix is based on a fix for Windows applications having trouble with high DPI displays.

Both 32- and 64-bit Windows versions, as well as those for Linux and Mac OS X, also received numerous stability, security, and performance fixes.

To me, this is a no-brainer. If you want the best possible Web browsing experience on Windows, especially 64-bit Windows, get Chrome today.

Source: ZDNet

 

I'm interested in user experience with this new 64-bit version of the browser particularly in the areas of web page compatibility, plug-in compatibility and stability. Anyone give this a whirl already? Also does it still install in the wrong folder Program Files (x86) instead of Program Files? I'm a little hesitant to try it if there are still issues but it's on the stable channel already so thinking about taking the plunge.

I've read Google Voice and possibly Google Earth don't work yet. I find that funny.

Also anyone bumped into the DPI scaling issue?

 

Hey mate,

Well, I've been using it for about a week or so. So far, no problems at all, except that my Bank didn't update its security software to 64-bit, so for now I can't do online banking via Chrome.

And yes, it still installs on Program Files (x86) folder.

Haven't tried Google Voice or Google Earth, though, but so far it seems very fast and stable.

 

Cool thanks a lot for the feedback, I may just install it then. I assume on a long enough timeline they will phase out 32-bit altogether (like they're doing with NPAPI plugins) I don't really get what people still on 32-bit systems will do but...I know for Mac there will only be a 64-bit option.

Note: you will need to install a 64-bit version of Java in addition to 32-bit if you go this route guys since you likely also have a 32-bit version of Firefox and IE. 32-bit Java for 32-bit browsers and 64-bit Java for 64-bit browsers. That is if you use Java at all.

 

Yeah I was using SRWare for a while myself. Actually really pleased with Firefox but I notice that Chrome is much more stable particularly when decoding video and it has out of process features.

 

Running nicely since couple days.

Extensions running fine:

Lastpass, Adblock, Tampermonkey, Paste It, EditThisCookie

 

I was getting BSODs on the latest chrome on Win8.1 (the one before this latest 64bit release) so i moved to Firefox and the BSODs disappeared. I'll check this one and see how it goes.

 

The MAC version is > For Mac OS X 10.6 or later.
So a no go area for me!

 

and i who thought i already had a 64bit chrome version. just checked on the task manager, it said 32bit.
went to their site, downloaded the 64bit installer, ran it, it installed the 64bit on
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application

 

FF FTW

 

@Catalyst
Why is your Chrome Version 38.0.2125.24 dev-m (64-bit)? I updated and it rest at Version 37.0.2062.120 m (64-bit).......(dev)=Developer's version?

 

It's in the stable channel now and downloadable from their download page right under the blue button, it's just not being pushed out as the default install. Perhaps they never changed the branding. Can anyone confirm? Either way it's supposed to be about twice as stable particularly with video so it may serve you better unless you frequent old sites but then you can just use the regular Firefox 32-bit to access those.

ArticStorm
Not a big fan of Opera anymore, their latest releases are meh. I generally stick to Chrome, Firefox and SRWare (Chrome modded to be privacy friendly).

 

Spyware to the max and you people want to use this.

Nsa and Gchq are get more time off because browsers like this are doing there job for them.

I'm just waiting for the knock on the door with the list of warez that I have downed over the last 15 years

 

I don't use it long for anything important. Basically just video, music and sites where there is a noticeable experience improvement. You can use SRWare Iron which is modded to be privacy friendly and still get the benefits of the technology on offer.

 

Well, Windows x64 users have finally got a proper 64-bit browser since Mozilla dropped the development of Firefox 64-bit and IE is traditionally shite. *yes* If I used Windows for internet I would wait for a little while until it gets more polished, though, and I would really be concerned about the privacy issues while using it. It's Google after all. But yes - using it for watching Youtube, 6 different websites and such... no harm there.

I'm lately using XBMC for watching web videos and films, playing music also. Man that thing is trippy! http://xbmc.org/ It turns your PC into a "smart TV" and "media centre". There's even an ISO image that you can put onto your USB stick and boot from there or you can install it on a separate bootable partition or HD. It's Ubuntu based and works like a charm. However, it is best to use the native Windows or Linux version. Trust me - XBMC is much more fun than watching videos in a browser! And there is soooo much content... one really doesn't need a TV any more.

Cheers !

 

At work, i use FF, Chrome...even IE to prevent compatibility issues. When it don't work on one, it works on another. That way, users complain less

At home, Chrome all the way. Because FF was sucking ressources like P4ris H1lton. But some days ago, i experienced a memory leak on Chrome : it was taking all my 8GB of RAM

So now, i consider browsers like DAWs : no one is really the best. And they all sucks one way or another

 

Pipotron3000
Yeah it's been a common complaint that the 64 bit version that was sucking that much RAM because I've been doing some research and it came up a lot. Anyone know if auto update works on 64 because I read it didn't and I don't want to manually update every time.

 

It's really good to hear about stuff like this so one doesn't have to test everything on his own computer, although a VirtualBox or VMWare comes really handy for that.

Speaking of testing... Thank you for mentioning Iron, Catalyst!

Chrome *is* the best programmed browser around. The only concern with it is privacy. If someone forked it into a side project like Debian guys forked Firefox and made Iceweasel that I'm using right now and it's based on the same philosophy like Iron, that would be a really good thing. So SRWare sounds like that thing. *yes*