Older Processors.
The "Intel Pentium 4" 2.26ghz processor scores 288.
Newer Processors.
The "Intel Core 2 Duo P7350" 2.00ghz processor scores 1,318.
So it's 100% possible for a processor with LESS ghz to be better. More ghz does not mean the processor is better in every case. Only when comparing two of the SAME processor.
Ghz is like RPM in cars. It describes how fast it's cycling. How much it does per cycle, however, varies between processor models, like it depends on what gear you're in in a car.
Let's say you have two cars, both in second gear, doing 4000 RPM. One of the cars accelerates up to 6000 RPM, in the same gear. It is now going
faster than it was previously.
If the second car kept accelerating to the point that it changed gears and dropped down to 3000 RPM, it would appear to be going slower (if you only compare RPM values), but it's going faster than the first car.
The reason people think that a higher ghz rating means a processor is faster is because of this. If you raise the ghz, the processor will be going aster than it was previously. However, when comparing two different processors, you cannot compare them by just ghz.
That's how processors are. If a processor can do more per cycle, then it can cycle less, while still doing the same amount or, or more work. The advantage of a processor cycling less is that less heat is generated, and less power is used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_Myth
Modern processors which have multiple cores are newer than older ones which have a single core. The newer ones are more efficient, generally doubly or more. People have looked at newer processors, thinking that GHZ is everything, and wondered why a 2ghz processor beats a 3ghz one, see that the 2ghz one is dual-core, and assume that was the reason, when in reality it's because the dual-core was newer and more efficient.
@
Sicklyboy:
