Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Generally, AMD processors are slower then comparable Intel procesors, despite being clocked higher. A friends intel i7 is clocked at 3.2GHz, my AMD phenom is clocked at 3.4GHz. Both are quad cores, yet his CPU outperforms mine. Why is that?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007, Linker3000, surfasb, Nifle, random Nov 15 '11 at 13:53

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I challenge the premise. There's a lot more at play here than just vendor. In this case, though, hyperthreading may play a big part in it. – Joel Coehoorn Nov 14 '11 at 22:08
"Out performs" it how? Based on what? – Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 Nov 14 '11 at 22:11
Certainly not in the P4 NetBurst vs AthlonXP days. There are too many variables for this answer. This will help: – paradroid Nov 14 '11 at 22:12
@techie007 in nearly all benchmarks. – Simon Verbeke Nov 14 '11 at 22:19
Interesting, it used to be the opposite - AMD significantly outperformed Intel. That's why they marketed their, e.g. 1.3GHz chips as "1600+", they claimed their 1.3GHz performance at least as good as an Intel 1.6GHz. – Kevin Nov 14 '11 at 22:45
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Because clock speed has very little to do with it - My 6+ year old (I think it is 6 now!) P4 3.0ghz wouldn't remotely stand up to a Core I3 rated at 2Ghz, it would probably be 4-6x slower on raw number crunching, and due to other improvements/sub routines built in, other tasks will also most likely be slower.

AMD machines may have less performance, but, they also cost less - so - it is all swings and roundabouts!

For true comparison, I recommend looking here.

share|improve this answer
I do not know about the reliability of CPU Benchmarks from PassMark, but at least their Video Benchmarks are completely made up. – Dennis Nov 14 '11 at 22:30
Ironically, 10 years ago AMD was trying very, very hard to convince people this was the case while their CPU's were outperforming Intel CPUs clocked much higher. Now the shoe is on the other foot and AMD is playing catch-up. – music2myear Nov 14 '11 at 23:10

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .