I wouldn't say the results are invalid, but the relevance is restricted to people who don't understand algorithms or statements such as "disk is slower than memory".
I once had to fix a program that was reading all the file names in a directory into a linked list, sorting it (using operations to retrieve, remove, and insert elements using an index, which worked by starting at the beginning of each list and counting elements until it got to the correct one), then using the resulting sorted list to process the first 10 files.
Rather than fix the abominably slow sort, I used the fact that all the file names were decimal numbers, and all the numbers were sequential, to scan the directory for the smallest number, then just increment that to find the next one. Needless to say, it was both much faster and used very little memory.
Algorithms matter, and the shame of ever faster processors and "more productive" languages is that too many programmers don't understand them.