Cachemem is a little more relaxed, and probably more representative of many real-world apps. Here, the Prescott-based Pentium 4s do relatively better, probably due to Prescott's very aggressive speculative pre-fetching of data from memory into the L2 cache.
I want to take a quick detour to point out one really notable difference. Have a look at this:
AMD has stated the 90nm and 130nm versions of the Athlon 64 are essentially the same, so I asked them about these results. All they would say is that for the 90nm parts, "some small optimizations were made in the memory controller and also in the way instructions execute." I think this looks more like a change in the way the L2 cache is organized. AMD and Intel both pack their cache transistors in ever tighter over time, and such a change could result in higher performance, as well. Whatever the case, the difference in L2 cache performance appears to result in ever-so-slightly higher performance all around for the 90nm 3500+, as you'll see.
|Early Unreal Tournament concept art reminds us how far we've come||24|
|New Asus 802.11ac router can top 1.7Gbps||31|
|Report: Intel targeting larger, pricier Android tablets||22|
|AMD's Mullins APU appears in $250 HP netbook||93|
|Core i7-4790K 'Devil's Canyon' overclocking revisited||45|
|Steam controller gets an analog stick||53|
|Delays strike Battlefield: Hardline, Dragon Age: Inquisition||20|
|It's official: Microsoft will consolidate Windows development||80|
|Microsoft's 2014 revenue up 11.5%, but income stagnates||30|
|The new new name for the UI is called Retro.||+37|