Ahahaha!
You couldn't be more wrong, but welcome to multi-core machines!
An Intel i7-980X Exreme 12MB L3 3.33GHz Hexcore will deliver you 3.33GHz processing power, six times.
And by six times, I don't mean 6x. "Times" in this case means time, that thing that makes the universe more than just a picture.
Basically, what I'm trying to satirically say is, you're not ever going to get 19.98GHz from a 3.33GHz multi-core machine.
It'll be a 3.33GHz machine that can do 6 tasks at once.
You'll be grateful for it to do 6 things at once, but I wouldn't expect it to make anything faster that much.
Also, try to go with AMD. I would try and compare their minimal differences to show a slight advantage of having AMD against Intel, but right now AMD just have an infinite moral advantage to me.
(The only bigger advantage AMD could get is if they started making cardboard chips! Hahaha.)
So it can do 6 things at 3.33GHz?
That's... actually, probably one of the best descriptions of multi-core functionality I've heard. I may have to borrow that.
To put it another way: Each core tackles one 'thread' at a time. On a standard, single-core CPU (like a Pentium), the CPU rapidly switches between threads to create the
illusion of performing multiple tasks at the same time. Emphasis on 'illusion'. Besides a bit of overhead switching between threads, it means the CPU is
either running your game
or running your anti-virus software
or running one of a dozen other processes currently on your machine.
With multiple cores, you can run one thread on each core. In other words, it's no longer an illusion - you actually
are running all of those threads, at the same time. However, any given thread is still limited to a single core. Dwarf Fortress, for instance, has only a single thread. If you run DF on a 6-core machine, DF will completely consume one of the six cores, while the rest languish. (Technically, the other five cores provide a
slight advantage, since all the background tasks running on your computer can be off-loaded to other cores. But that's only significant if you're using a noticeable percentage of your CPU for background tasks.)
And the AMD vs. Intel debate is a great topic for inciting nerd wars, right up there with ATI vs. nVidia. Right now, I seem to recall that Intel has the fastest chips, while AMD has a better power-to-price ratio (although I'm probably seriously oversimplifying right now!). But hey, if you find an awesome gaming laptop for 1.5k and it happens to have an Intel chip, don't pass it up just because you're dead-set on a competitor's brand name!