From most of the deep hardware tests I’ve seen…  It’s not a memory bandwidth issue…  It’s literally the performance of the CPU.  I’ve seen tests of these chips with 1866 chips with the FSB kicked up, and a lot of other tests, and well…  Just like Llano, nothing seems to budge them.  And from the memory tests, it’s not because the 1333 bandwidth channel that comes stock is saturated.

Maybe you’ve seen something else.  I’d love to hear it if you have.I love these chips, and I’m glad they’re getting improved, I just don’t think that the Memory Controller is the issue.  Sometimes an architecture just has limits.  They’re better than Atom, and good enough for most things, and even gaming if you crank either the rezolution or the details down.The thing is, I’m nto too excited about the E-450, it should be a lot like the difference between a 1.6 and a 1.66 Atom…  Worth having, but not worth spending extra on.The biggest speed bumps BY FAR are on the lower end chips, especially on the enhanced GPU speeds…  The lowly C-50 got a 30% clock boost for crying out loud, and they almost doubled the GPU!  The C-30 got a 33% speed boost, etc.  The E series…  not so much, although the extra hundred mhz on the GPU can’t hurt anything.

I don’t believe there was any mention of a faster version of the C-30, 1.2GHz is its normal clock speed and it’s a single core chip.

The AMD Turbo Core is for the dual core chips and isn’t a pure clock speed boost.  It only over clocks a single core, while under clocking the other to balance out the power usage.

The main benefit is thus to the GPU, but like Intel Turbo Boost this is just a boost as needed feature and also depends on how cool the system is running as over heating will lesson how long the feature can stay enabled.  Also it depends on how good the predictive feature is to determine when the boost is needed to how effective it will be.