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 LG Gram laptops put heavy-duty power into feathery bodies||6|
|Antec P110 Silent touts quiet looks and quiet operation||5|
|Monkey Day Shortbread||8|
|Thursday deals: a nice Z370 mobo, a huge VA display, and more||0|
|Samsung's Notebook 9 portables rock eighth-gen Core i7s||3|
|Rumor: Ryzen 2 set for Q1 2018 and a Fenghuang APU breaks cover||49|
|TR's 2017 Christmas giveaway: eight days left and counting||8|
|MSI gives Radeon RX Vega cards an Air Boost||22|
|Corsair's latest SO-DIMM kit takes 32 GB of DDR4 to 4000 MT/s||8|
|Full disclosure: while I work for Intel; the opinions I express here are my own I think I understanding the issue you ran into. For the Braswell platf...||+37|