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.
|Velocity Micro workstations harness Epyc, Threadripper, and Xeon SP||10|
|Toshiba puts 64-layer flash to work in the TR200 SSDs||3|
|Threadripper CPUs sneak into pre-built PC listings||17|
|AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200 CPUs reviewed||41|
|Silverstone shines RGB LEDs on the Mini-ITX RVZ03 chassis||9|
|Radeon Software Crimson ReLive Edition 17.7.2 boasts refinements galore||14|
|Cooler Master gives the MasterBox Lite 5 case an RGB makeover||2|
|USB 3.2 spec pushes bandwidth up to 20 Gbps||55|
|Razer Tiamat 7.1 V2 headset packs ten drivers for immersive audio||13|
|edit: i'm not funny||+39|