Basically I was just trying to find out if performance of multiple cores spread out over two processors was better than the same amount of cores in a single processor. Which I believe you all have answered for me.
glad to help. And yes, multiple cores over 2 sockets is the same (or less depending) as all cores in 1 socket. Six cores is wrapped up into 1 socket, and splitting them up into 2 sockets (which is 3 core per socket) is really the same thing.
Dual Core is somewhat older technology, and Intel did some improvements to cache and core size (and power) which equates to a much better "core" processor than Dual Core, which is why 4 cores in a single socket is almost always better than 2 socket of Dual Core, simply by the way the Dual Core was designed, it was Intel's first iteration. Six core has made a complete overhaul of the core line, and makes the quads look pathetic by comparison, but in this example you are splitting the same cores across socket, not using different technology.
for your purpose, yes the cores are the same. 4 sockets 2, 2 socket with 4 or 1 socket with 1. If you could do it, that would be identical performance IF we are talking faking the cores in the socket to only use 2 core (this can be done on some quad cores so there are no logical cores, in the BIOS). It's not the same as Dual Core (early versions of core) processors versus Quad Core. You change many characteristics of the technology not JUST the core speed / or number of cores per socket. That's what I was attempting to explain. Dividing cores among sockets has neglible difference, than compacting them into 1 socket. There is a vast difference between a true Dual Core processor vs a True Quad or True Hex core however.
Dual Core (even faster core speed) isn't as fast as a lesser speed quad core, in a single socket. (at least in my experience)