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.
|ASRock serves up a new pair of Kabini embedded mobos||9|
|LG's latest notebook LCDs feature embedded touch sensors||2|
|Samsung Electronics' Q2 guidance shows falling revenues, profits||29|
|AMD issues updated statement on Fury X noise problems||59|
|AMD revises Q2 guidance; gross margin, revenue fall||63|
|TSMC's 10-nm FinFET process toddles towards validation||24|
|Samsung cranks SSDs to 2TB with the 850 Pro and EVO||70|
|TR's July 2015 mobile staff picks||39|