> The reason I find random access into cache having the same performance as sequential access as not that profound is because it falls out directly from the above scenario

Correct. The behavior can be logically explained. There's no magic involved.

> sequential access into RAM _is_ random access of cache

I actually like your statement even better than my post. Sequential access into RAM _is_ random access of the cache! What a delightfully profound statement.

High-performance computing is your specialty. Of course everything in my post is obvious to you. Elementary even.

If you want to argue the semantics as to whether a logical conclusion constitutes as profound or not. Well, I guess?

Not gonna lie. Your comment kind of comes across as a long-winded humblebrag. "Everything OP said is true. I just think it's obvious." Sorry if that wasn't your intent.