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 Portable SSD T3 reviewed||6|
|G.Skill hooks up the TR BBQ with some giveaway goodies||7|
|We threw a Minecraft party to test Samsung's Gear VR headset||8|
|Deals of the week: cheap solid-state storage and more||17|
|Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 480 hot-rods Polaris 10||55|
|AMD gets back in the black with its second-quarter financials||34|
|Nvidia unveils a Pascal-powered Titan X with 11 TFLOPS on tap||160|
|Nvidia harnesses eye-tracking to improve VR rendering efficiency||18|
|I'll...just review the thin air on my desk where a GTX 1060 would fit, since that's what we have.||+114|