Since this question is about the increment operator and speed differences with prefix/postfix notation, I will describe the question very carefully lest Eric Lippert discover it
OK after much research (sad I know!), I think have answered my own question:
The answer is Maybe. Apparently the JIT compilers do look for patterns (see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/clrcodegeneration/archive/2009/08/13/array-bounds-check-elimination-in-the-clr.aspx) to decide when and how array bounds checking can be optimized but whether it is the same pattern I was guessing at or not I don't know.
In this case, it is a moot point because the relative speed increase of (2) was due to something more than that. Turns out that the x64 JIT compiler is clever enough to work out whether an array length is constant (and seemingly also a multiple of the number of unrolls in a loop): So the code was only bounds checking at the end of each iteration and the each unroll became just:-
total += intArray[j]; j++;
00000081 8B 44 0B 10 mov eax,dword ptr [rbx+rcx+10h]
00000085 03 F0 add esi,eax
I proved this by changing the app to let the array size be specified on the command line and seeing the different assembler output.
Other things discovered during this excercise:-