Possibly so - - Maybe
I will relate to you a personal observation on this subject. I will be flamed by some for saying this and some will be nice and say something like, "It simply doesn't work like that!", but I observed this on a computer of mine. With a baseline computer with a PC Chips P23G Motherboard, 3.x Ghz Celeron processor and 1 Gb ram running Windows XP Professional, I added a 1 GB stick of RAM in an attempt to speed the computer up. (Following the generally espoused philosophy of "to speed your computer, add more RAM"). This doubling of ram made negligible difference in how fast the computer processed opening or processing of a graphic or an application. I then replaced the processor with a Pentium D dual core 2.8 Ghz processor and observed a dramatic speed increase in the opening and processing of graphics and the loading speed of applications. (During these two separate upgrades, no additional changes were made to subject computer) From this experiment, I concluded that it is considerably more important how fast you can process information than how much information you can hold in cache (RAM) for ready retrieval.
So, In response to your original question, I would predict that a faster processor would probably do much better at giving you the results that you are looking to get from more RAM than more RAM would.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. (Others may have different stories.)