no.

not in the general case.

let the heft of the trailer they're towing be irrelevant to the comparison -- that's not speed, that's torque. for argument's sake, allow the payload capacity in aggregate to be equivalent.

workload-dependent perhaps, but signalling rate of the PHY is what it is.

four pigs with lipstick on them and harnessed together are still pigs, and aren't going to outrun a bear.

don't let ten years of Intel marketing kidnap your ability to actually think.

a whole generation has been brainwashed to accept that slow clock rate is OK as long as there are more cores.

a great many people have been trained to measure in bits, whereas serialization rate (clockrate/baud not datarate/bits) is the important metric.

achieving ubiquitous/omnipotent parallelism effectively is *hard* and sometimes so hard as to be moot. P vs NP.

that's why your computer's disk drives are SATA not PATA. and maybe also why the developers of handbrake in France are so cranky all the time.

i.e., in keeping with the analagy, when four 25mph trucks (pretty pigs) can get from windsor to sherbrooke faster than one 100mph truck (locomotive, bear, etc.), let me know.

slower^n is not faster: faster is faster.

faster^n is even faster than that!

GLAL,

R.