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.
|Gigabyte has two A320 boards for bread-and-butter Ryzen builds||26|
|MSI GTX 1080 Ti Armor 11G is the first custom card on e-tail shelves||9|
|Google points deep-learning machines at audio effect subtitles||5|
|Throw a Quadro card on Gigabyte's Z270X-Designare||12|
|Deals of the week: an RX 480 4GB for $150 and more||27|
|Dell UltraSharp 32 8K embarrasses 4K monitors||78|
|EVGA readies a Hybrid Waterblock for Nvidia GP102 cards||11|
|Elgato Stream Deck lets streamers play news desk||7|
|Puppy Day Shortbread||27|
|Well, so much for Common Courtesy Day...||+31|