Sorry, but you clearly don't understand the point, even though it's been clearly explained by OP, and (I hope) clearly explained by myself.

It doesn't matter how fast the architecture can move stuff from RAM to core and back, if there isn't enough RAM to prevent lots of swapping.

If you are working on smaller items where all of the architecture magic can do its job, great! It's faster, and the additional speed might let 8 GM of RAM move stuff around so efficiently that a user might not notice the difference between 8 GM of RAM on this architecture and 12 GB of RAM, even though it's a load that legitimately needs a total of, say, 10 GB of RAM.

But once you get to a point where a single workload is more than filling the physical RAM - and let's face it, a modern OS, with a modern browser with a few tabs open that you go back and forth between so they never go to sleep, plus a few desktop apps (half of which are likely actually browsers wrapped in a bit of native app stuff), is going to want a lot more than 8 GB of RAM) - these architecture tricks aren't enough. You need more RAM, because you need to keep these loads off the disk.

Again... I respect the architecture, and you are right that it matters. But the architecture being faster can't overcome the fact that many loads - maybe not the every day productivity tools, but definitely things for developers, creators, gamers, etc. - need to have so much stuff in RAM and move it too/from core so often that the architecture needs to slam it to disk no matter what. And once you are in that position, while it's great that what is in RAM gets accessed fast... those disks are your bottleneck.

So... instead of being snarky and snide trying to clout up on me or OP, think about it and you'll understand the issue I hope. Or not.

J.Ja