But there's also no guarantee that one will always hit 3GHz with a 6300/6400 even with top-of-the-line RAM and mobo's--the stepping of the CPU is important, though perhaps there are more good 6300/6400 steppings than bad steppings. But there's no guarantee that everyone with a 6300 and a good mobo will hit 3GHz. It's likely, but not a guarantee.
6x20 don't have the same consistency as the 6300/6400, so people should stop using the 6300/6400 results in the same post they recommend the 6x20.
It's like if CocaCola was out for 40-50 years, and CocaCola Zero is supposedly coming out, which has zero calories and claims to "taste the same".
I've tasted CocaCola Zero, it tastes like crap, it's not the same at all. Just because it has the same name at CocaCola, doesn't mean it is the same.
People therefore, shouldn't go around saying, "Hey CocaCola tastes great, you should buy CocaCola Zero because it's the same thing but with zero calories (larger L2 Cache)". And then the person goes and buys it, spits it out all over his keyboard because it tastes like crap.
Just because CocaCola is a drink not everyone likes, doesn't change the fact that a higher % of people like the taste of CocaCola over CocaCola Zero.
Now sure that was an over the top analogy, but it gets my point across.
For reference, I actually don't like Coke or Coke Zero.
The 6300/6400 has a higher % of success/consistency than the 6320/6420 did. I've heard of too many 6320's having awful OC potential, way different than what I heard when the 6300/6400 initially came out.