Is there an actual performance difference between x86 and x64?

[Janar]

As your processor is a Celeron I'd suggest you changing the OS to 32 bit. If you Right click on Computer in the start menu > Properties it shows if your hardware is compatible for a 64 bit version of windows.

And why is that? Modern Celerons are built with 64-bit instructions.

[Julio.]

Well, it has a 64 bit OS already installed anyhow, if it wasn't compatible, it wouldn't be working   

[Pandalink]

I think the better question is why do you use Firefox? Chrome is masterrace.

customisability

Chrome is the Windows 10 of browsers, except at least I can make 10 look and work like 7.

[Salmonella]

customisability

Chrome is the Windows 10 of browsers, except at least I can make 10 look and work like 7.

I liked Firefox its customisability as well, lots of great add-ons like Web Developer, but eventually I opted for Chrome  for security reasons.

[Huntsman]

No wonder we don't get along.

Hahaha no kidding.
I like Opera because of its looks and its interface that's adapted to look nice with Windows 10. I dislike Chrome for visual reasons and due to the fact that it likes to hog on my ram. Opera is just as fast as Chrome, I see no reason not to use it.

[Vaeldious]

And why is that? Modern Celerons are built with 64-bit instructions.

Haven't looked at specs recently, but don't Celerons have a much smaller FSB and L2 caches creating a bottleneck (compared to i series)?

[Teddy]

Opera is just as fast as Chrome

1100% wrong as usual

[Ben.]

It all pales into insignificance when youre running 20/30 sessions using Selenium and ChromeDriver - fks shit up then!

[Julio.]

Haven't looked at specs recently, but don't Celerons have a much smaller FSB and L2 caches creating a bottleneck (compared to i series)?

Indeed true, but they're still 64 bit processors and perform as so.

The only tangible difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit in my opinion is the ability of the 64 bit OS to recognise and utilise any more than ~4GB RAM. Whether or not he has a 64 bit Celeron or 64 bit i7 this holds true.

Rytuklis, just try and get your hands on a bit more RAM mate.

[Huntsman]

1100% wrong as usual

I am not speaking of a technical point of view, I am speaking about my own personal expierience, so there is no need to get all smart and "I'll prove ye' wrong" on me. For me, Opera works just as fast and I have no reason to use Chrome.

[Vaeldious]

Indeed true, but they're still 64 bit processors and perform as so.

The only tangible difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit in my opinion is the ability of the 64 bit OS to recognise and utilise any more than ~4GB RAM. Whether or not he has a 64 bit Celeron or 64 bit i7 this holds true.

Rytuklis, just try and get your hands on a bit more RAM mate.

I'll agree to that point that in his case, all he would see is a difference in CAPACITY, not PERFORMANCE. I'm reminded of the analogy of bit-width of buses being like that of a highway. Sure, an 8 lane highway can accommodate more traffic, but if traffic is restricted to a maximum speed of 20MPH, in comparison to a 4 lane highway that is able to move over 60MPH, the average end user would perceive that the 4 lane is faster, and that really what the question I asked was in regards to. That with a restricted front side bus (back in the LGA775 days pre-i7 the difference was like 800mhz on P4/ 400mhz on celerons iirc) of half the normal transfer speed that even 64-bit instructions were used as a sales tactic to make systems seem like they would be faster. Same thing is being done with more modern systems, ie: Windows 8/10 laptops without any kind of touch feature looses a sizable chunk of features and usability of the system. Ever tried to navigate W8's Metro interface with a mouse? It's a nightmare.

And with such a restriction, unless he is continuously filling his RAM capacity and the data image becoming fragmented, then he would see no perceivable performance gain or loss from even upgrading his RAM to a higher CAPACITY, and the only ways to get proper performance boost would be CPU-replacement (assuming its not one of those chipset/non-socketed junk logicboards) with a higher FSB speed, and also upgrade RAM speed/latency (if not already maxed out) from say 1066mhz to 1600mhz (for example) to match with whatever FSB the CPU is tuned to. This would yield better that just swapping for "more RAM" as consumers have been lead to believe. More =/= Better when dealing with hardware.

[Julio.]

More =/= better indeed. But "More == Better" holds true when you currently do not have enough.