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.
|Nanoxia Project S case slides into home-theater setups||17|
|Cat5e and Cat6 cables get a 5Gbps speed boost||0|
|BIO-key fingerprint readers let users get in touch with Microsoft Hello||0|
|Google Translate gets a boost from deep neural networks||3|
|BlackBerry will no longer make BlackBerries||8|
|Nvidia previews Xavier SoC with Volta GPU for self-driving cars||18|
|be quiet! Silent Loop AIO liquid coolers hum along quietly||3|
|Microsoft catapults datacenter performance with FPGAs||47|
|Asus J3455M-E mobo sails out with Apollo Lake SoC aboard||23|