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.
|Take a video tour of our Breadbox build||22|
|National Hot Tea Day Shortbread||25|
|Deals of the week: a $140 850 EVO 500GB SSD and more||12|
|AOC Q2963PQ offers 29" of ultrawide IPS on the cheap||30|
|Need for Speed for PC embraces 4K displays and unlocked FPS||55|
|White Shirt Day Shortbread||27|
|Some Zen CPUs may pack 32 cores and eight memory channels||142|
|Snapdragon 625 SoC powers up mid-range mobile devices||17|
|HP will bring FreeSync to all of its AMD-powered laptops this year||29|