How is it possible to come to that conclusion? Do you realise there's 1000 microseconds in a nanosecond, from the article:

"As the 3D XPoint technology is 1000 times faster than the currently used NAND technology its latency is measured in nanoseconds instead of microseconds."

So the latency is up to 1000 times less (aka faster), that's obviously going to allow for a massive throughput gain too, not to mention the fact the data isn't deleted on power-off (like in RAM).

This is revolutionary for memory storage, no more need for RAM and a seperate HDD, all the data can be called from the SAME memory in NANOSECONDS.

DDR3 hits around 17GBps+ and this is expected to hit around 20GBps.. there is faster RAM out there but overall it couldn't touch this new tech (as it would have basically 1000GB of RAM or whatever size the storage is, and it's not limited to loading data from a HDD (low tranfer rate) into RAM.. aka NO LOADING TIMES required)

You are wrong by saying "It's slower both in terms of throughput and latency.". I'll leave you a quote from INTEL who is creating the technology:

"It ushers in a new class of non-volatile memory that significantly reduces latencies, allowing much more data to be stored close to the processor and accessed at speeds previously impossible for non-volatile storage."

Oh wait sorry... just realised you were talking about the RAM only, my mistake.

I was obviously referring to the end result.

then!=than

there!=their

2 grammar mistakes in 2 sentences..great impression!

Lol, just noticed.

Yeah- for purposes of irony :p