2.8 ghz > 3/3.2 ghz in Compressor?!

[Reach]

From the Macworld-tests of the various new Macs:
http://www.macworld.com/article/131971/2008/02/32ghzmacpro.html

How can the 2.8ghz be faster than the 3.0/3.2ghz ones?

Is it because there is little RAM on these machines or something?

 

[TyleRomeo]

From the Macworld-tests of the various new Macs:
http://www.macworld.com/article/131971/2008/02/32ghzmacpro.html

How can the 2.8ghz be faster than the 3.0/3.2ghz ones?

Is it because there is little RAM on these machines or something?

I'd like to know also. Both machines had 2GB of RAM so there is no reason why the results would come out that way. But if it's true, I'm happy since I'm getting it mainly for compressor and I can save $1600 in the process.

 

[Reach]

I'd like to know also. Both machines had 2GB of RAM so there is no reason why the results would come out that way. But if it's true, I'm happy since I'm getting it mainly for compressor and I can save $1600 in the process.

I know, but it was the only thing I could think of. I know After Effects suggests 2gb ram pr core ie, so we could possibly see some strange effects of very little RAM on multi-core utilizing tasks..? Finishes qicker and has to write to RAM more.. hehe Just trying to make some sense of it.