Fire Tv 32 Bit Or 64 Bit

I have a Fire TV 4k stick and use Amazon Photos as the screensaver. Tonight I suddenly had an issue where the screensaver would not come on. Instead, it had a black screen that said the screensaver would resume wen I had freed up more space. I should also have investigated further. I assumed that the Fire TV 3rd gen would be 64 bit instead of changing back to 32 bit after the Gen 2 was.

Since the Amazon Fire TV 2 was a 64-bit device, many people seem to have assumed that the new Fire TV 3 would also be a 64-bit device. In reality, that’s only partially the case, because while the Fire TV 3 has a 64-bit CPU, the current version of Fire OS 6 running on the device is actually a 32-bit operating system.

The 3rd generation Fire TV has a brand new Amlogic S905Z CPU. It’s so new that not much is known about it. What we do know is that it’s part of the S905 family of processors, which is Amlogic’s first line of 64-bit products. However, trying to install a 64-bit app will result in the installation failing, as many trying to install the 64-bit version of Kodi have learned.

If you run the ADB command adb shell cat /proc/cpuinfo on the Fire TV 3 to display information about its CPU reports that it has a AArch64 processor. This means that the device definitely has a 64-bit CPU.

Running the ADB command adb shell getprop ro.product.cpu.abilist on the Fire TV 3 to view the device’s Application Binary Interfaces (ABI) reveals that it’s missing the arm64-v8a ABI that you would expect a 64-bit Android device to have. That explains why 64-bit apps will not install on the Fire TV 3. The current version of Fire OS 6, which on my device is version 6.2.1.0, is a 32-bit operating system.

Now that we know what’s going on, what does it mean? Not much really, but that’s just my opinion. You can find thousands of pages of forum posts full of people arguing the pros and cons of the 32-bit vs. 64-bit debate, and honestly, I don’t know enough about it to confidently give an opinion. What I do know is that most people are in agreement that a device benefits most from a 64-bit architecture if it has 4GB or more of RAM, which the Fire TV 3 nor any other Fire TV model have.

If had to guess why Amazon put a 32-bit operating system on 64-bit hardware, I’d say it’s because this is the first release of Fire OS 6 and making it universally usable was probably a priority. By making the first version of Fire OS 6 a 32-bit operating system, it means it can be used on both 32-bit and 64-bit devices. Amazon’s Fire TV and Fire Tablet models consist of a mixture of 32-bit and 64-bit architectures. It makes sense to, at first, concentrate on an OS that could theoretically be installed on all devices and then work up to a 64-bit version later.

Amazon’s Fire TV Hardware Specifications page for developers lists whether the CPU of each Fire TV and Fire TV Stick model is 32-bit or 64-bit, but the new listing for the Fire TV 3 is distinctly missing that information. This could be because they don’t yet know if they’ll be updating the Fire TV 3 to a 64-bit version of Fire OS 6 at some point in the future.

For now, all this just means you should stick to choosing a 32-bit app when sideloading, if you have the option to choose between a 64-bit or 32-bit version. Apps installed from the Amazon Appstore will automatically install the correct version, so there’s no need to worry there.

Follow me on Twitter (@elias) and Instagram (@esaba) to see what I'm up to.

Share

ShareTweetShare+1xnamkcorsays:October 26, 2017 at 11:54 am

How much effort is required to develop both a 32 and a 64-bit program for Android? If I did have a 64-bit device and OS, would I need to be concerned that an app wouldn’t work when it works on a 32-bit device/OS? I’m sure large companies like Facebook and Google can easily just develop both versions of an application, but what about real indie devs?

AFTVnewssays:October 26, 2017 at 12:22 pm

32-bit apps will run perfectly fine on a 64-bit device/OS. There’s no concern with that at all. I’ve yet to come across an app that has a 64-bit version but doesn’t have a 32-bit version.

The difficulty of making a 64-bit version varies greatly on the specific app and how much effort is made to take advantage of the potential benefits of moving to a 64-bit architecture.

xnamkcorsays:October 26, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Dolphin(Gamecube/Wii) devs refuse to make a 32-bit version because there are features they apparently use in 64-bit that they don’t want to have to manage two separate builds for. And they did it even when there were 0-4 devices with Android 64-bit in the wild.

But, other than that I can’t think of any.

PurplePeckersays:October 28, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Can you name a “feature” in a 64-bit architecture that is not available in 32-bit? Register widths rarely impact source code.

xnamkcorsays:October 28, 2017 at 4:57 pm

That’d be up to them to state. Probably something not technically not in 32-bit, but only ever is included in 64-bit devices or OSs.

Taverassays:October 26, 2017 at 12:18 pm

Hi I have the new firetv (3-GEN) and I have Kodi-17.5.1 ARMV8A (64BIT) running in it with no issues

Chimerasays:October 26, 2017 at 1:46 pm

How exactly did you install it to make it work? no-one else has managed it that I know of.

AFTVnewssays:October 26, 2017 at 2:55 pm

Could you tell me what software version your Fire TV 3 is running?

Roccosays:November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm

Ya how did you manage that i havent been able either tried on 6 brand new ones

Also one app that crashes on Fire TV3 is iViewHD must be 64bit only works fine on all other devices

clockssays:October 26, 2017 at 12:18 pm

Honestly, there could be pros to using 32bit. Usually the apps size is smaller for one thing. Unless video decoding is impacted, not sure what advantage making the OS 64bit would have, but I’m not an expert.

Reflexsays:October 26, 2017 at 1:21 pm

I was going to point this out as well. There are a few benefits to 64bit even on low memory devices (much larger address space for ALSR and other security methods) but you have to weigh those benefits against the drawbacks such as larger memory profile and larger app sizes. It is perfectly defensible to go with 32bit if you have 4GB of memory or less and do not need a larger memory address space.

sashasays:October 26, 2017 at 1:06 pm

I could nt able to install Stbemu pro on new firetv (3gen). Could you please provide me instructions , any settings to work.
Stbemu worked flawlessly on my previous generation all fire tv devices

Brian Carvillesays:October 29, 2017 at 1:59 am

Same here

Tech3475says:October 26, 2017 at 2:37 pm

I suspect that simplicity is the main reason, perhaps they only have stable 32bit blobs or theyre building from the same base os and dont want to make a 64bit variant when they have multiple 32bit devices which may be based on the code e.g. Echo, Stick 2, etc.

Considering the main intended use of these devices, they likely see no rush to go 64bit.

Sebsays:October 28, 2017 at 5:29 am

Exactly my thoughts. You have to consider the purpose of the device. You wouldn’t want a web server or database server running a 32 bit operating system. You would quickly discover the limits of a 32 bit architecture (not only RAM but much more).

But on a single purpose device (side loading is up to your own risk of course) there is simply no need to rush to 64 bit. The device will perform just as good or even better on 32 bit than it would on 64 bit.

joe lopezsays:October 28, 2017 at 7:42 am

Now the big question, should i stay with my Fire tv 2 or buy the new Fire tv/

xnamkcorsays:October 28, 2017 at 8:01 am

Wait for the real Fire TV 3 to be released. This is just a misnamed Stick.

Taverassays:November 2, 2017 at 8:42 pm

Hi, my kodi 17.5.1. ARMV8A (64BIT) just stop working today, in new firetv (3-GEN) it won’t open after the new update

Taverassays:November 2, 2017 at 8:43 pm

Hey, my kodi 17.5.1. ARMV8A (64BIT) just stop working today, in my new firetv (3-GEN) it won’t open after the new update

Jonathan Kingsburysays:November 5, 2017 at 4:09 am

Has anyone worked out yet how to put Google Play onto the Fire TV 3? I know it’s early days but wondered if anyone has had any luck?

john A Muirsays:December 31, 2017 at 1:46 pm

Kodi (Leia) 18 is coming out in Feb 2018. It is a 64bit ver. it will run on Xbox One. 32 bit will not run on an Xbox One when using the Amazon FireTv.
My question is the FireTv ver1 is only 32bit. the FireTV 4k ver2 64bit?????
and the FireTv ver3 may be 64bit.
I have the 4k 2nd Ver is it 64 bit. I can not find out what bit the 2nd gen is running. I need to have a 64bit FireTv to run on an Xbox One X. We have been waithing for Kodi to make a Kodi ver that will run on a 64 bit operating Xbox One. Kodi 17.6 (Kryton) is only a 32 bit ver, Kodi 18 (Leia) is going to be a 64 bit ver. Most don’t care if their FireTv is 32 bit or 64 Bit BUT those that are using the Xbox One NEED theit FireTv to be 64 Bit…. Thank you

Jasonsays:February 25, 2018 at 10:09 am

Bro… the devices aren’t mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter if your fireTV is 32-bit and your XBox One 64-bit, the apps don’t even work on the wrong system… for instance, APKs are for android based devices like the fireTV. The APK is not meant for XBox One… What are you talking about.

MrKaonsays:November 22, 2018 at 7:13 am

Trying to install Kodi 64bit on fire stick 4K looks like same problem fire OS 6 is 32bit running on 64bit SoC.
So only 32bit APK can be installed.

MrKaonsays:November 22, 2018 at 7:24 am

Sorry my mistake SoC on new fire stick 4K is 32bit ARM v7

@elias

Mozilla Firefox has been around for over a decade and has built up a huge following of loyal users in that time. It used to run Internet Explorer close for top Windows web browser but these days has slipped to distant third behind Internet Explorer and more recently Google Chrome. There’s a lot to like about Firefox with the thousands of available add-ons, but also it’s had it’s fair share of problems with various performance and memory related issues over the years.

An area where Firefox fell behind is making the browser a full 64-bit application to work better with 64-bit versions of Windows. A well coded 64-bit application should theoretically perform better and more efficiently than it’s 32-bit counterpart on a 64-bit operating system, usually at the expense of a bit more memory. Internet Explorer has had a 64-bit mode for several years, Chrome also has a version that was released in 2014. Firefox was the only major browser to not have a 64-bit version, until recently.

Since version 42, Firefox has an official 64-bit version that you can download and install instead of the 32-bit version, although it’s currently not available on the main Firefox download page and is a bit hidden away in the Mozilla release pages. With this long awaited release, the question now is, does the 64-bit Firefox perform any better than the 32-bit version?

To find out we’ve put Firefox through a number of well known benchmarks and a few of our own to see what the differences are between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. We’ve included Waterfox which takes the Firefox source code and compiles it with 64-bit optimizations so it should run more efficiently and faster on 64-bit Windows computers. For comparison Firefox Nightly 64-bit has also been included to see if test versions are improving in speed and efficiency.

To run the benchmarks each browser was installed on a clean and fully updated Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit. The hardware was an AMD Phenom II X4 955 CPU @3.2Ghz with 4GB of 1333Mhz memory and a 7200RPM HDD. We tested Firefox 42.0 32-bit, Firefox 42.0 64-bit, Firefox Nightly 45.0a1 64-bit and Waterfox 40.1.0, all settings were left at their defaults.

1. JetStream

The JetStream test is from Webkit and the successor to Sunspider. It’s a series of Javascript benchmarks covering a range of workloads and scenarios, including tests from Octane 2 and Sunspider. Each test runs itself 3 times and an average score is given.

2. Kraken

Kraken was developed by Mozilla themselves but this test adds the time taken to complete each test together and gives a total score in milliseconds, so lower is better.

3. Peacekeeper

The company behind 3DMark and PCMark, Futuremark, developed this benchmarking tool. It tests things like DOM operations, HTML5, text parsing and rendering. Peacekeeper is no longer supported by Futuremark but still works.

4. Octane 2.0

Octane is Google’s own Javascript testing suite which replaces the popular V8 benchmark offering 9 additional tests and 4 more than Octane version 1.

5. BrowserMark

The BrowserMark suite tests a number of areas including browser resize, page load and requests speed, Javascript performance and tests for DOM, CSS and graphics speed. It should automatically choose your nearest regional server, manually select one if you want a different region.

6. RoboHornet

RoboHornet is a relatively new benchmark test and still in alpha. The default Core suite tests many areas including tables, DOM, CSS, canvas, scrolling and Javascript.

7. Dromaeo

This is another testing suite produced by Mozilla and runs a number of its own tests, Sunspider tests and V8 tests. Each benchmark runs itself at least 5 times which explains why the whole process takes around 15 minutes to complete. We used the Recommended Tests option.

8. Single Tab Memory Usage

This memory test is rather simple, Firefox is opened and left at the standard start page, after about 10 seconds to let things settle, the used memory for the Firefox.exe process is read in Task Manager.

Note: Firefox Nightly is at a disadvantage in these memory tests because it loads an additional plugin-container.exe which rises and falls in memory usage as the number of tabs changes. As it consumes extra RAM this process is included in the results.

9. 5 Tabs Open Memory Usage

This test is again quite simple, the Raymond.cc homepage is loaded into 5 tabs and then after a few seconds the memory usage of Firefox is recorded.

10. 25 Tabs Open Memory Usage

Similar to the test above apart from 25 tabs are open at once.

11. Application Start Time

Measures the time taken in seconds to load Firefox or Waterfox for the first time after a reboot (cold start).

Results and Summary

As you can see from the results in all 11 tests above, the 32-bit version of Firefox won an impressive 8 of the tests, only losing its number one position in the Kraken and Peacekeeper benchmarks and the cold start time. The memory usage results were also better and if you scale them up, the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit versions with multiple large website tabs open could be hundreds or even thousands of Megabytes. 64-bit could help if your browser constantly consumes several Gigabytes of RAM but they are mostly extreme circumstances.

Waterfox, which has been around for a few years and specifically compiled for 64-bit, cannot compete with the 32-bit version. The Nightly Firefox does show some improvements over the official 64-bit release, so things should improve over time. Any Firefox 64-bit version still appears to be very much a work in progress and it’s difficult to recommend installing any x64 version if you are specifically looking for higher performance. We should see some performance improvements in the future, but Firefox 64-bit doesn’t appear to give you a faster browsing experience at this time.

You might also like:

Mozilla Maintenance Service maintainanceservice.exe by FirefoxRun an Installed Firefox Browser Together with Firefox Portable VersionsRe-enable Saving or Warning when Closing Multiple Tabs in Firefox4 Ways to Force Incompatible Firefox Add-ons or Extensions to Install3 Tools for Firefox and Chrome that Optimize Memory Usage and SQLite Databases

I have a slow (1.40 GHz) laptop running Windows 8.0 64 bit. Usable RAM is 3.57 GB. System rating is 3.5 Windows Experience Index.

I install Firefox 64 bit quantum but haven’t noticed any improvement over Firefox 56 64 bit.

I’m wondering if would be better to go back to a 32 bit version of Firefox.
I’ve also been updating old 32 bit versions of apps to 64 bit version when they’re available. Maybe this too is a mistake.
Anyone have any helpful advice – other than that I should retire this poor old laptop and get with the times?
Thanks.

Reply

Tested on FF v.56.0: still x32 slightly or noticeable better than x64, and with all the limtations -> not worth to switch from x32 to x64 version :/

Reply

I switched from 32 bit to 64 about a month ago and haven’t had any issues for the moment. I did noticed that Java is not supported in the 64 bit version. Why is this and how can this affect me??? I have Windows 7-64. Just curious and should I go back to the 32 version or am I safe using the 64 bit version?

Reply

To confusing I will leave it till they print proper information about it

Reply

Installed Firefox x64 bit and have no issues it seems to perform much better than the x32 bit version. Not using any tests just real world use. The only plugin is Flash, that is okay with me. Pale Moon x64 bit is also installed and it just seems a bit faster. Again no tests to back up my observations or experience.

Reply

Mozilla Firefox 53.0 (64bit) on Microsoft Windows 10
Released on April 19, 2017
JetStream(v1.1) 143.19 ± 5.3145
Kraken(v1.1) 1197.1ms +/- 3.2%

I just tested 2 of benchmark but the result tells us the performance getting hilariously better.

Reply

I don’t get, why Mozilla doesn’t push 64 Bit more as the mainly offered download.
Of course it makes only sense to fokus on develpment, when enough people have installed it. So they should push it al little more.
Persons with a 64-Win should automatically install the 64Bit version….
Persons with FF-32 and Win 64 should be reminded by a button from time to time to change to 64 bit with next autoupdate…….

Reply

From: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Benchmarking
“Many Firefox builds have a diagnostic tool that causes crashes to happen sooner and produce much more actionable information, but also slow down regular usage substantially. In particular, “GC poisoning” is used in all debug builds, and in optimized nightly builds (but not opt developer edition or beta builds). The poisoning can be disabled by setting the environment variable JSGC_DISABLE_POISONING=1″

So, open a new text file and type:
set JSGC_DISABLE_POISONING=1
“C:Program FilesNightlyfirefox.exe”
Save as ‘Go_Nightlyx64.bat’ (or your favorite file name)
Run this and then run the benchmarks on Nightlyx64 in order to get a clean set of performance numbers.

Reply

I use 64bit FF but I am disappointed in it. What usually kills my browser experience is when FF is using over approx 2.5GB ram. I have multiple windows with multiple tabs and never close FF except to make it work again. FF enters a state where it wont exit and has to be killed (thank god for session savers). This problem occurs when javascript uses too much memory. Firefox (32 and 64bit) has very poor memory handling for javascript. FF becomes unstable when javascript has used too much memory. It almost seems as if the FF64bit release still has a 32bit javascript engine. Problematic sites are Facebook and Google’s gmail.
Internet Explorer 64bit actually has be best handling of javascript memory, easily allocating 5GB+ and releasing it again. Google Chrome 64bit for certain only has a 32bit javascript engine.

Reply

I’ve found that the 64 bit version uses much less CPU when it has multiple windows open compared to the 32 bit version.

Reply

I’ve made the test myself on firefox 47, in a computer with an i7 6700k, windows 10, 32gb of ddr4 ram, and the 64bit version of firefox is a bit faster than the 32bit

Reply

(on jetstream, kraken, octane and browsermark)

Reply

Good article. looks like 32 bit for stretch then.

Reply

I just installed 64 bit firefox and it is loading websites much faster than my 32 bit did. Loading websites is nearly instantaneous. I am very impressed. I have an i7 4790K CPU and 16 gigs of ram and a GTX 780 video card. It may have nothing to do with it but the graphics seem sharper and clearer. Shrugs shoulders.

Reply

I would suggest there may have been an issue with your 32-bit install if you notice the 64-bit version is much faster and pages “look” better. I also have a an i7 with 16GB and a GTX 970 but 64-bit Firefox is not faster than the 32-bit for me. Also don’t forget the tests are done on lower end hardware so differences will be magnified.

Reply

Just did an informal test on 64bit Windows 10 on Core2DUO E8400 CPU/4GB ram and Firefox 32 did “feel” faster. Specifically loading a new website, and scrolling up/down once the site was rendered,felt faster/smoother. Seems they highly optimized the32bit version.

Reply

Yes, you’re right, during testing the 32-bit just felt faster and the scores here just back up that. 64-bit has a long way to go before it performs better.

Reply

Very impressive results, will stick to x32 FF… thanks for this great article!

Reply

I’m trying the nightly and it seems fine until now, except by some complements.

Reply

Thank you for the research, Raymond. I particularly like the two memory
usage stats. My problems, like many others I’ve read, are the
extension incompatibility issues that are getting worse with each
Firefox update. Developers can’t seem to keep up, especially since they are mostly free.

Even for Thunderbird, I just made a substantial donation after
contacting the developer and pleading for an update to work with TB 8.
I’m happy to donate, but it could get rather expensive for those that
are broken after FF & TB updates and don’t have updates or similar
extensions to use instead. I’ve tried workarounds (there’s at least one
that you wrote), but failed on this one.

I do have an extensive email archive of your past blogs and love your
website’s new look. Thanks for all the help you’ve given us all.

Reply

Thanks again for your valuable research:)

Reply

How about while just using it to surf and maybe watching you tube videos, Does the 64 bit versions feel any different, like do they generally feel faster and more responsive? Because I don’t think differences in milliseconds would be detectable with the naked eye. Also I often have a lot of tabs open would the 64 bit be worse for this? I have a Core i5 with 4 gigs of ram.
Also I use “Xmarks” and “Ad block plus” and “Reminder Fox” would these extensions work with 64 bit?

Reply

I am stop using 64 bit browser since the youtube or flash video is not supported.

Reply

thanks. Very helpful. I was just thinking about using Waterfox but I
think i’ll just stick with Pale Moon for now. It would be great if you
could perform a test for Pale Moon too.

Reply

Yep, seconded your motion…been using Pale Moon x64 for a while

Reply

@google-80ca841e9e04d431f6e015123a3a1c85:disqus there is 64 bits Flashplayers out now !
Thanks Raymond for an awesome blog !

Reply