Good writeup, I must say. There are way too many web postings to the effect of "omg save ur cash dood! DDR2-800 C4 is the same as DDR3-1600 C8 !!11!", and it would be kind of nice to hear the other aspects of the memory being being discussed in-depth.
I was a little disappointed that the article doesn't fully address the cost/real-world performance issue, which is still pretty poor. I suppose that, after reading the opening paragraph, I got my hopes up a little much.
A few months back, I was scouring the web like crazy to try and find articles justifying DDR3 for the my most recent rig, and I was ready to throw down a sizable wad of cash. But despite the features that DDR3 brought to the table, they simply didn't translate into enough real-world improvements for me. So DDR2 this time around.
I fully expect my next rig to be using DDR3, but I also expect my next rig be Bloomfield-based. By that time, memory manufacturers will probably manage a process-shrink, basic economics and time will lower the prices (especially on larger modules), and Intel's QPI will likely help pull a couple extra points of performance out of such memory.
Until then, DDR2 still has a pretty good sales pitch.
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | GTX Titan | Corsair DDR3-2133