65nm vs 45nm cpu=1333MHz bus and cache slowing it down

Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing • View topic - 65nm vs 45nm cpu

Both the 65nm and 45nm processors are fine. Which one you choose is best decided by the cost of the chip as well as the other components you wish to use.
For example, most of the 45nm processors run on a 1333MHz bus, which is more suited to chipsets and motherboards that support DDR3 memory. DDR3 is currently more expensive than DDR2, and note that increases in memory speed do not affect overall system performance that much:

Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing • View topic - Is faster memory worthwhile?

I was able to locate reliable data showing the true amount of overall system performance improvement one could expect from replacing slower memory with the same amount of faster memory: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=615

As you can see, the overall performance improvement is generally less than 1%. Why is this true? The answer is *cache*. More specifically I mean the L1/L2 (and sometimes L3) processor cache, which intercepts some 99% of the data transferred between the processor and RAM. In other words, due to the way the caches work, the processor normally accesses main memory directly only about 1% of the time.

Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing • View topic - Is faster memory worthwhile?

It really doesn't matter how much memory a particular program uses, the cache anticipates the specific memory addresses that will be requested in the near future, and retrives that data *in advance* of the program's actual request. When the program does request the data, the cache steps in and says "here you go", with no waiting for the actual RAM.