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.
|Rockchip SoC powers $149 Chromebooks, sub-$100 dongle||7|
|Asus' ROG Sica cuts the gaming mouse to the bare essentials||10|
|Here's why Xeon D could make dual-socket servers scarce||23|
|The TR Podcast 173: Torquing the Titan||4|
|A fresh look at storage performance with PCIe SSDs||35|
|Leaked specs detail Intel's 14-nm Braswell SoCs||37|
|Here are our musings on the new MacBook||156|
|Microsoft unveils Atom-powered Surface 3 tablet||89|
|THIS IS THE INTERNET. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR FUN DISCUSSION.||+36|