Waterfox 18.0.1 is a faster 64-Bit version of Firefox

Waterfox | The fastest 64-Bit variant of Firefox!

Waterfox is a 64-Bit version of Firefox. The Firefox source code is taken and compiled to run specifically for 64-Bit Windows computers. To make Waterfox stand out a bit more, it’s compiled with optimizations so that it will run more efficiently and faster than just compiling Firefox as a 64-Bit program. For some people with older systems, the 64-Bit version loads quicker and is much more responsive than the 32-Bit build.

How does it compare to 32-Bit Firefox?
In benchmarks, the 64-Bit variant of Firefox out-performs the 32-Bit variant. Also because this variant is being built specifically for Windows, there might be further performance increases.

Were there any optimisations made?
Yes, Waterfox was compiled with SSE, SSE2, x64 favoring and the following optimization flags: /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy

Download: Waterfox 18.0.1 | 30.5 MB (Open Source)
View: Waterfox Homepage | Release Notes

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Will the Samsung Galaxy S IV have an eight core processor?

Next Story

Nokia's official cases for Lumia 920 coming soon

11 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The problem with "builds" is what it is, they are builds, NOT releases. When a new release is out, you have to wait for the builder to update it, and then possibly update manually.

This make the use of these builds a PITA, especially on multiple machines. That's why we need official 64 bit support.

BTW. the Chrome 64 bit build is progressing nicely, I think they will be providing an x64 release within the next half year.

the question is... how STABLE/reliable is pcxFirefox (and the like)?

because it seems Pale Moon (which is probably the all around best choice for a 64bit variation of Firefox) is more concerned with keeping stability even if it means sacrificing some speed and i suspect in real world tests most of these 64bit browsers are going to be mostly the same when compared to one another so in a case like that i would rather have a reliable more proven browser.

If you want the fastest variant of Firefox out there - seriously - it's pcxFirefox, followed by Lawlietfox, then Ayakawa's builds. Those three alone, with pcxFirefox out front, leave Pale Moon and Waterfox in the dust, and yes these have 64 bit builds from time to time (the developers don't always provide 64 bit builds which are, realistically, still effectively unnecessary considering some issues like not many 64 bit plugins overall).

I use pcxFirefox myself and it consistently stomps "the competition" (meaning other Firefox variants) in most all the testing that I use: Sunspider, Kraken, V8, and the new kid on the block, RoboHornet (which is a pretty extensive browser test overall, not just focused on Javascript performance like most others).

pcxFirefox, that's the one... currently at 17.0.1 however since he's busy and he only builds the "odd" number builds so, when Firefox 19 comes in, expect a new version to appear. Having said that, pcxFirefox 17 still gives me better results in those benches against even 18 with Ion Monkey in action.

But Pale Moon and Waterfox, those are so heavily bloated overall - they don't just compile the source with certain flags, they also add a lot of code to their builds as well which basically is like shooting ones self in the foot, so to speak.

I tried Waterfox (x64) a few times, and was bit by some major problems (including one that destroyed Windows 7 gadgets unless you had a System Restore point handy). So, because of bugs, because of an installer that wants you to install "other" software, and because its releases always lagged behind Firefox by several days/weeks... I left it, and went back to running Firefox (x86).

Note, Waterfox support is really just one developer working on it, I believe. And their "support page" is a 458 page thread on Overclock.net. It would be nice if the project had more manpower to be a serious one.

I wonder if mozilla will switch to 64bit from 32bit in a couple of years or so. Most of the processors in use are 64bit, XP won't be used much after april 2014 due to it receiving not security patches. Vista 32bit was fairly popular compared to 64bit but there are few vista users left. Most win7 installs are 64bit, same with win8.

i agree. nowadays there is not much reason for them to not make a proper 64bit build as, like you where saying, Windows 7 and newer should pretty much be mostly 64bit at this point.

Again with this drivel and snake-oil. Even their own benchmark page and the linked page shows that the advertised *minor* improvements aren't even consistent, therefore unreliable.

Phouchg said,
Again with this drivel and snake-oil. Even their own benchmark page and the linked page shows that the advertised *minor* improvements aren't even consistent, therefore unreliable.

The tests you see the x64 version being inferior, it's because Mozilla did not ever optimised the x64 version. It's somewhat like what happens on IE9 x86 vs x64.

The Waterfox guy does not make any changes in code. He just recompiles the latest stable version in x64 mode.

In short, if you check Mozilla's own Nightly x64 vs Nightly x86, you'll see the x86 is faster. If Mozilla truly never paid any attention to x64 version. All it does is PR moves. If they pay a little attention and optimise the x64 version, then you'll see Waterfox will become faster or at least equal.