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.
|Acer Spin 1 and Nitro 5 laptops are ready for school season||10|
|Ryzen AGESA 184.108.40.206 exposes more memory overclocking options||26|
|Zotac previews plenty of petite PCs for Computex 2017||4|
|Kingston KC1000 SSDs jump into the consumer NVMe space||4|
|Zotac readies a GTX 1080 Ti Mini and a slick external enclosure||23|
|Towel Day Shortbread||9|
|MSI gets the GTX 1080 Ti ready for USB-C monitors of the future||16|
|Cryorig Cu heatsinks are cool in copper||9|
|Cougar Conquer enclosure makes the PC a centerpiece||17|