Yes you did. Here's a quote from your previous post:
It's right there in bold--you're implying that any 6300/6400 will hit 3.4GHz with good RAM and mobo
It's a FACT that the 6300/6400 have better over-clocking results than the 6320/6420.
It's a rarity that a 6300/6400 has bad over-clocking potential. The_Pook, you don't even realize you validated my claim yourself. You have a 6300 with A stepping that over-clocks well. Doesn't that validate the fact that 6300/6400 have better consistency in over-clocking even more, if you can have a bad week 6300 that can still over-clock well?
It's just as much a rarity with the 6320/6420, only instead of being bad, it's good. It's hard to find people with consistent 6320/6420 over-clocking results, and the whole point of OCN is potential of over-clocked products.
Sure, clock for clock an E4400 goes toe to toe with a 6300/6400, and gets very close to the results of a 6320. At stock speeds, you could safely say, "Hey the E4400 is a better buy. It's $140 and gives you the performance of a $180-200 chip!" But the E4400 also tops out at 2.9-3.2GHZ, whereas most people with 6300/6400 can hit 3.2GHZ on stock voltage and at 1.4 voltage can hit 3.4-3.5GHZ. "MOST PEOPLE" not all.
So if it's such a rarity to find a BAD over-clocking 6300/6400, and such a rarity to find a GOOD over-clocking 4300/4400/6320/6420, where's the justification in linking the two on performance potential?