That is not true.
In tests performed by
Anandtech, the difference between a 6mb cache (2.5ghz) vs a 3mb cache (2.4ghz) in real world performance was small (on average 5%) - and that's inclusive of the 100mhz advantage that the 6mb has over the 3mb cache. The difference is even smaller when comparing a Merom processor with the same clock w/ 4mb cache.
There is no way a 1.86 penryn, even with 6mb, can match the power of a 2.4ghz (3mb) penryn - the difference in clock speeds is just too great.
There is no "owning" of any sort.
The thing is that its an accumulation of MANY advancements. I think the Cache increase of 50% actually helped a lot!!! Of course you might get low results in a TEST, but think about the real world "feel" of the computer. The cache increase is a significant part of the overall speed of the AIR. Actually, the whole point of the cache is its ability to work with the main memory!
The fact that there was a huge performance boost with the SSD, its vital that the cache can keep up. Its about the reads, not the Ghz. People put WAY to much emphasis on the Ghz when thats not the ONLY thing that makes a computer tick and you DON'T need 6 Ghz to run a basic app or get that "instant" result (like booting up an app). The big numbers are just for the people that don't understand computers (which is pretty a pretty large %)
Of course when testing speed, the Ghz does matter. But not necessarily the underlining factor. I bet you would see a major change with a 3 mb cache and the 6 mb cache becuase of the effect it will have on the amazingly fast reads in the SSD
Usually you have good critiques, but don't be so harsh and shoot someone down without the proper facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache That will explain a little better.
TL;DR - Fetching the reads fast enough from the BLAZING fast SSD pretty much requires a "stronger" or larger cashe, AKA, 6 MB makes people happy.
