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.
|Fractal's double-wide Node 804 case can swallow a dozen drives||42|
|Friday Night Shortbread||14|
|Friday night topic: Where is that plane?||98|
|WSJ: Microsoft, Google pressure Asus into shelving dual-OS tablet||31|
|Deal of the week: Discounted tablets, wireless keyboards, cheap SSDs, and more||12|
|Xbox One tightens gap with PS4 in U.S. shipments||44|
|Amazon Prime gets a price hike; Google Drive gets a price cut||46|
|Somehow this translates into a dual-Hawaii card, right?||97|
|The uncompressed audio sounds AMAZING over my $5000 speaker wire. It's truly worth every gigabyte.||+66|