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.
|Here's an early look at DX12 "Inside the Second" benchmark data||100|
|Deals of the week: an Asus ROG motherboard for $160 and more||9|
|Aero 14 notebooks pack gaming power into a slim profile||10|
|Gigabyte shrinks the GeForce GTX 1070 for Mini-ITX||15|
|Calyos workstation passively cools Haswell-E and a Titan X||19|
|Samsung starts selling unlocked Galaxy S7s in the USA||5|
|Rumor: GeForce GTX 1060 specs leak||52|
|Coolchip Technologies teases a low-profile "kinetic cooler"||28|
|EKWB has a full-coverage water block ready for the RX 480||28|