Was the CL2 at DDR466 for real?

EARLIER THIS month, we achieved what looked like an outstanding 2-2-2-6 DDR466 result for Corsair XMS4000 memory on the MSI Neo 875P Canterwood mainboard, and the benchmark results in Sandra and PCMark2003 weren't bad, either.

OCZ complained that the results could be incorrect, since the Neo board supposedly does not enforce the BIOS latency settings for the DRAM, but run using the slower SPD settings in real, like 3-4-4-8 on this RAM, while the BIOS shows 2-2-2-6.

Well, after the second round, more feedback came, and the question still remained. Could it be that MSI have hit on some clever techniques for upping motherboard performance to get the Corsair RAM to run at DDR466 CL2?

Or was it really the case of the BIOS settings not really taking effect, as OCZ claimed? Well, look at the results screenshot from CTIAW software benchmark that I run - just like Sandra, it claims that effective latency is 3-4-4-8, not 2-2-2-6!

Up to now, there is no confirmation from MSI itself that the Neo board had some BIOS issues with memory, or whether it correctly implements the Intel PAT memory path pass-thru. MSI, what is really true here? Is Neo the righteous hero, or is the BenchMatrix in possession of True Files? µ