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.
|A technology overview of the Aimpad R5 analog keyboard||2|
|Microsoft helps hardware companies make VR more affordable||5|
|Intel P3100 M.2 SSD has datacenters in mind||7|
|Microsoft Surface Ergonomic Keyboard merges comfort and style||23|
|Surface Studio puts the iMac on notice||64|
|Microsoft Surface Book i7 packs a bigger punch and more batteries||40|
|G.Skill KM570 MX keyboard goes back to the basics||4|
|Intel's Purley server platform won't use 3D XPoint memory||4|
|In the lab: EVGA's GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Superclocked graphics card||40|
|Signing your posts is daftly redundant. Meadows||+30|