I said:



However, I meant 3.2, not 2.3. I realize that a 2.7 Phenom II would beat a 2.3 core 2, as the performance of their respective processor families is similar, and, thus, you're comparing apples to apples. More or less. Rather, what I was trying to say is that, since Intel's processors are generally faster than AMDs, an older Intel processor with a higher clock speed would beat a newer AMD with more cores in many cases. The "generation speed increase" (for lack of a better term) of the Phenom II being newer than the Core 2 is not enough to compensate for the clock speed differential. Any software you run that cannot constantly take advantage of all four cores will probably run slower with the 2.7ghz Phenom II.

Er, is it clear now? Still seems kind of muddy to me. I'll try bullet points.

• Newer processors are faster than old, clock for clock, and core for core.
• For the past couple generations, Intel's processors have been faster than AMDs, clock for clock, and core for core.
• Within the same company (Intel, AMD) a newer, slower processor will perform better than an older, faster processor, so long as the clock speed difference is modest.
• The speed increase of Intel over AMD is greater than the speed increase of AMD gaining another generation (for the past couple generations).

Conclusions:

• If we were talking about a 2.7 i3 vs a 3.2 core 2, I'd have no reservation in saying that the i3 would be faster in virtually all possible cases. LadyLorraine's original statement would be accurate.
• If we were talking about a 2.7 Phenom II vs a 3.2 core 2, the core 2 would often be faster. Namely, in software that did not, or could not, (due to reasons of architecture, or problem domain) use all four cores, most of the time. LadyLorraine's original statement would not be accurate as an absolute.

*sigh* I'm not much good at explaining this. Suffice to say that I think we're on the same page, and I appreciate the correction.