==3300389== LLi misses:          2,018
==3300389== I1  miss rate:        0.00%
==3300389== LLi miss rate:        0.00%
==3300389==
==3300389== D   refs:      160,952,196  (160,695,447 rd   + 256,749 wr)
==3300389== D1  misses:    160,021,290  (160,018,713 rd   +   2,577 wr)
==3300389== LLd misses:     10,014,907  ( 10,013,138 rd   +   1,769 wr)
==3300389== D1  miss rate:        99.4% (       99.6%     +     1.0%  )
==3300389== LLd miss rate:         6.2% (        6.2%     +     0.7%  )
==3300389==
==3300389== LL refs:       160,023,365  (160,020,788 rd   +   2,577 wr)
==3300389== LL misses:      10,016,925  ( 10,015,156 rd   +   1,769 wr)
==3300389== LL miss rate:          1.2% (        1.2%     +     0.7%  )
```
The main differences between the 2 runs are:
1. D1 misses: 10M v/s 160M
2. D1 miss rate: 6.2% v/s 99.4%
As you can see, loop2() causes many many more (~16x more) L1 data cache misses than loop1(). This is why loop1() is ~15x faster than loop2().