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.
|Here's the not-so-live video version of The TR Podcast 164||10|
|Here's what's cooking in Damage Labs||11|
|Deal of the week: An IPS ultra-wide for $420, plus cheap SSDs and more||12|
|Microsoft's quarterly revenue up 25% on strong Surface, Xbox sales||16|
|Assassin's Creed Unity PC requires 6GB of RAM, GTX 680||197|
|Join us as we attempt to live stream The TR Podcast tonight||13|
|Civ: Beyond Earth with Mantle aims to end multi-GPU microstuttering||62|
|CPU startup claims to achieve 3x IPC gains with VISC architecture||59|
|I just found this AMAZING trick! Call of Duty takes up 0GB if you just don't buy it!||+114|