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.
|Updated: Microsoft shows Windows 10, preps public preview build for tomorrow||68|
|Windows 9 is actually called... Windows 10||79|
|Doom looks awesome in the Lego universe||9|
|Project Ara phones with hot-swap modules launching in early 2015||3|
|HP's new Intel-powered Win8.1 tablet costs $99||10|
|Hynix slides tease vertically stacked memory with 256GB/s of bandwidth||35|
|Catalyst 14.9 drivers improve performance, CrossFire scaling||43|
|Photoshop heading to Chromebooks—in streaming form||18|