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.
|Samsung's DDR4 modules for servers have quadruple-stacked memory dies||28|
|This 8'' Windows 8.1 tablet will cost only $149||20|
|Amazon sale discounts hundreds of downloadable PC games||39|
|Wednesday Evening Shortbread||43|
|Asus shows glimpse of ZenWatch; Apple 'wearable' coming Sept 9||23|
|Zotac's ''Pico'' PC runs Windows, slips into a pocket||76|
|Dropbox Pro now offers 1TB of storage for $9.99 a month||38|
|Predicting player inputs smooths streaming PC games||24|
|Now we can lose our data 8TB at a time.||+44|