AMD vs. Intel Pi Calculation Explained

Bodaggit23

Bodaggit23

Active Member
Can someone please tell me, what's the deal exactly
with AMD's inability to compete in this thread:
http://www.computerforum.com/87599-post-your-superpi-score.html

Also explain how the AMD's even come remotely close to
Intel when people suggest the AMD chips as a viable
alternative to building an Intel system?

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I have 2 AMD system's
myself, and they work pretty good, but they're turds when
it comes to this program. What does this Pi calculation say
exactly about the processors ability?

(Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be critical, I would just like to know the facts)
 
I think it has to do with something about intel being faster at the kind of benching that superpi uses, not entirely sure though.
 
I got a question.I posted my pi calculation yesterday and the result was 43seconds.Today I made it again and it was 41seconds.I didnt run any apps on my pc when I made my tests...
 
the architecture of the intel based cpus greatly favors super pi, the way it's run at least.the higher clocks of most intel chips helps alot, even if they'd perform on par with amd (not clock for clock , but like a 5000+ amd and lower c2d)

not sure exactly why internally, but they're just more efficient in that type of app.

because yeah. my 3.4ghz Phenom 7750 scores under an E2160, where in most games there'd be a significant gap.
 
Last edited:
The best score posted by an AMD chip is:
AMD: 24.672 - Phenom 7750 @ 3300MHz

My i7 clocked at 3.43Ghz did it in 12.33 seconds.

That's not even close, even with similar clock speeds.
 
Bodaggit23 said:
The best score posted by an AMD chip is:
AMD: 24.672 - Phenom 7750 @ 3300MHz

My i7 clocked at 3.43Ghz did it in 12.33 seconds.

That's not even close, even with similar clock speeds.
Click to expand...

The best is 23.93 seconds, by me :P same chip, just not updated.
And the i7's internals are alot more advanced than Phenom I internals, so it'd get higher if it was same clocks and same everything really. Not sure what the key difference is, but internally AMD and Intel chips differ quite a bit.
 
What I'm looking for here is an explanation.

Congratulations on shaving 3/4 of a second off your score.

Your turd is still a turd. :D
 
Do you remember the A64 vs P4? It's basically the same thing, just reversed now, Intel simply has a more efficient clock-for-clock architecture then AMD does right now.
 
[-0MEGA-];1231563 said:
Do you remember the A64 vs P4? It's basically the same thing, just reversed now, Intel simply has a more efficient clock-for-clock architecture then AMD does right now.
Click to expand...

Then why would anyone build an AMD system?
 
Then why take the test? lol

To me it's a real life calculation, and the Intel chips
smoke the AMD's.

Can you back up your statement?

Show me some "real world" results that prove that
AMD is as good as Intel. Within a reasonable margin...
 
Bodaggit23 said:
Then why would anyone build an AMD system?
Click to expand...
Because AMD offers their CPU's at a very reasonable price, so people who can't or don't want to spend a lot of money on an Intel processor can still get a decent AMD processor.

Bodaggit23 said:
Then why take the test? lol

To me it's a real life calculation, and the Intel chips
smoke the AMD's.

Can you back up your statement?

Show me some "real world" results that prove that
AMD is as good as Intel. Within a reasonable margin...
Click to expand...
Oh they do, The C2D/i7 beats the current AMD's clock-for-clock in every test.
 
The Phenom II 720 is priced $5 cheaper than the Intel E7500 (recently released).
It has 1 more core and more L3 cache. Average overclocks for 720 are 3.7ghz, for the E7500 it's 4.1ghz. At stock the 7500 is more efficient at single core, 720 at most multi core and games. After overclock the margins stay about the same, though on average the margin slims to like 2% towards AMD.
As games and apps will start using more than 1 or 2 cores, the triple-core will see obvious advantages (in most 2+ core games, the 720 wins or is on par with teh higher clocked E7500.)
 
Mitch? said:
At stock the 7500 is more efficient at single core, 720 at most multi core and games.
Click to expand...
That's all very interesting, but where are you getting this information? Could you link to these tests please?

vinnie107 said:
I have a phenom 9550. i think its awesome, no waiting except when vista decides to be gay.
Click to expand...
Vista never makes me wait. Maybe it knows you don't like it. :D

@ Omega - Thanks for being honest.
All I'm after is some understanding, because until now, I thought
the comparison between the AMD and Intel chips was alot closer.
 
Why are you basing all of your reasoning on SuperPi? My AMD outperforms a lot of intels in games (not all obviously) and it was cheaper.

So.... because I collected more Vespene Gas faster than you, that means my Protoss ultimately are better than your Terran...?

Hopefully some of you understand that connection...

I do agree that the i7 is a great piece of hardware, don't get me wrong, I just think it's ignorant to post up your results of SuperPi and use that as a basis to shoot down AMD.
 
lol Just looking for facts. I thought they were much closer
as far as performance.

Like I said, I have two AMD pc's and I'm very happy with
them.

Ps. It doesn't take an i7 to whoop a Phenom, apparently.
 
Mitch? said:
The results of Super Pi aren't ANY indicator of real life performance between AMD/Intel.
Click to expand...

+1 on his statement. It really depends on the program you are running on how a processor really performs. Advanced Micro Devices Phenoms may not get a great score in Super Pi because it is a very general measurement of processing power. Super Pi also doesn't take in account multiple cores which obviously give a CPU more processing power.

Phenom II Quad-Core processors are really not lagging behind the Intel's Core 2 Quads and are about equal with most of them in processing power in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top