Internet Explorer 64 bit (x64) vs. 32 bit (x86)
Written by Vygantas Lipskas on February 25, 2009
After posting Firefox 64 bit vs. 32 bit results, it’s time to check how well does Internet Explorer 7 64 bit compete against its less advanced brother, Internet Explorer 7 32 bit (x86).
Less is better
Although rendering test has shown results in favor of Internet Explorer 32 bit, 64 bit version felt slightly faster during the whole web browsing experience. If you don’t really need a flash player, then Internet Explorer 7 x64 would be a much better solution among those two.
Be the first to know. Subscribe to our RSS Feed 
or follow us on Twitter.
I think that the graphs 2, 4, 5, 7 are no good at all.
The graphs should (must) be done from zero, because if I take into account only the bar lengths, Rendering Time Test for x64 is more than double than for x86.
Please do the graphs from 0, not from an intermediate value.
Thanks,
Quinn
Thank you for pointing this out, because after reading the comments on this page I went back and looked at the graphs again and realized that there wasn’t NEAR the differences as I orignally thought there was. I guess I just assumed the graph originated from 0. I didn’t even notice until you pointed it out. Once I realized that the graphs are only showing the tail-end of the data, I got what I came here for. :)
Thanks for the info.
IMHO the bars are a bit lame. When you look at the graphics, you first get the impression, that x64 is somewhere 3-5 times faster than its counterpart. Where actually it’s 0.000x something :)
But, really, other than that, a good insight. Thanks again.
Yes, indeed :-) That’s the way default excel graph works
I’m sorry, but this story is riddled with statistical errors and manipulation. You really might want to redo the performance graphs (starting from zero as the other viewers have also correctly noted), create an identical browser environments and have a baseline figures. Not good, not good at all.
I think the graphs are just fine. I can see how it might be confusing for those that can’t read, but us literate folks definitely get it. I know some people just like looking at the pictures though, but i don’t believe you should have to cater to that.
To: Erik
Actually, being literate has nothing to do with it. Insulting people’s intelligence doesn’t make you appear any smarter, and if it makes you feel better, I pity you.
Fact is, the people who made their points here obviously CAN read, or they wouldn’t have known there was anything confusing about it.
My suggestion is that the poster might include a iconic graph that is started from 0 as suggested by many here, and place it above the blown up graphs that were obviously used to show the more detailed data.
This way even a novice such as myself can look at it quickly and learn what we came here to learn instead of only people who are “literate”.
as previously stated, graphs are dumb and misleading, this article will probably have a net effect of misleading the audience as a whole.
One sensible, if a little rude, answer here. You can draw blue lines as long as an AOL “waiting to download line”, it does not change the results. Only the difference between the numbers matter. Well, actually, none of it matters. If you have a 64 bit system, use the 64 bit IE, why not it’s free and does, presumably, work slightly better.