Langretz

When it comes to on die cache for processors Intel and AMD actually have the same amount. Intel doesn't literally have more on board cache than AMD it's just marketed a different way. for the Core 2 Duo processors Intel markets it at 2MB of L2 Cache where as AMD just markets theirs at 2 x 1MB. I guess if you look at the fact that Intel's L2 cache is all shared between the two CPU's then it has more.But Intel and AMD processors both do different things better. In raw performance Intel has the crown right now and if you say otherwise then you don't really know much about Modern Processors. The Core 2 Duo CPU's dominate because their core architecture is designed so much better than AMD's Athlon X2. But if you look at efficiency AMD has Intel beat. Because AMD has had an integrated Memory controller ( aka built-in northbridge ) on their processors since the start of the Athlon 64 line. Both makers are very good. Intel CPU's are definitly better overclockers since they can handle higher temps and higher clock speeds. I would pick Intel right now because AMD has just been falling behind recently. But that probably means they have something in the works the company hasn't released to the public yet.

http://www.techspot.com/news/23633-ocz-intry-modules.html People will go out and pay 600 dollars for some Liquid Cooled RAM chips because they run "fast", as that is what Liquid Cooling is supposed to represent to computer enthusiasts. But Corsair not to long ago released their latest and greatest member of their Dominator Series RAM chips that run at PC2 10000 speeds and don't require Liquid Cooling for 600 dollars as well. The only reason I could think OCZ would want to put a liquid cooling system on their modules is because they think the chips can be overclocked to the point of needing liquid cooling. Personally I think that is rediculous because Corsair's PC 10000 chips are far more overclockable and have a higher stock speed to start at.