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.
|Intel's 3D NAND has 32 layers and 256Gb per die||31|
|Telltale's Game of Thrones game looks pretty good||11|
|TR's November 2014 mobile staff picks||19|
|Join us tonight at 8:30pm CST for the TR Podcast live||6|
|Samsung to intro FreeSync-enabled UHD monitors in March 2015||35|
|AMD's Carrizo APU is coming in mid-2015, will share package with Beema successor||57|
|Acer's new 27'' G-Sync monitor scales up to 144Hz||27|
|Finally light bulb's Tesla tech gives LEDs a worthy rival||52|
|Sounds like a good way to conceal the terrible financial performance of the mobile business unit.||+35|