> performance has become increasingly constrained by memory latency, which has grown much slower than processing speeds. Sounds like they would oddly prefer me

> performance has become increasingly constrained by memory latency, which has grown much slower than processing speeds. Sounds like they would oddly prefer memory latency to grow as least as fast as processing speeds, which would be terrible. Obviously, memory latency actually decreased, just not enough. So it seems likely they made a mistake and actually meant that memory latency has decreased slower than processing speeds have increased, in other words, that it is not memory latency but memory random access throughput (which in rough approximation is about proportional to the inverse of memory latency) that has grown much slower than processing speeds.