Comments on: Internet Explorer 64 bit (x64) vs. 32 bit (x86)

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:04:46 +0000

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.

By: sam

sam — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:53:36 +0000

as previously stated, graphs are dumb and misleading, this article will probably have a net effect of misleading the audience as a whole.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:41:16 +0000

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. :)

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:33:29 +0000

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”.

By: Erik

Erik — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:17:56 +0000

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.

By: Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Around the Browsersphere #12

Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Around the Browsersphere #12 — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:42:22 +0000

[...] Here’s a comparison between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of IE7. [...]

By: G. Smith

G. Smith — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:52:39 +0000

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.

By: Vygantas Lipskas

Vygantas Lipskas — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:06:03 +0000

Yes, indeed :-) That’s the way default excel graph works

By: bush

bush — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:59:51 +0000

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.

By: qrexus

qrexus — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:41:58 +0000

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