Well I wasn't impressed with my e2200 and my friend gave me an E6420 free because he upgraded to a Q6600 so in terms of performance how better is the 6420 than the 2200 now running at 3.1GHZ

Ok... but AFAIK you shouldn't see much of a jump from a 3.1 E2200, to a 3.2-3.5 (what are you taking it to?) E6420.

How did the 3.1 E2200 fail to impress you?

well he bought his pc over to my house to see which one does my XRT render faster and his 3.0ghz 6420 beat my 3.1 ghz by 1:30 and both running 2003R2 with brazil and max9 and same stuff except for the cpu's

EDIT:now running 6420 at 3.33 ghz with same temps as my 2200 and he has 30fps more in lfs with same x1650 with same 600gpu and 533ram clock (he has demo) and mine is pro his 1650 is just normal one adn i had to down clock from 650 to 600

edit-2: seems that 6420 has a lower multi. and higher cache size so thats why it beat mines mind you my 2200 i am about to Return now was 9X multi (i lowered it).....gonna do another PI calculation to see what's what

Punctuation is your Friend. Please become better friends, soon.

Sorry was typing too fast and finished doing super pi and running orthos looks stable though going to post Pi results now in Super Pi section

This test in not reliable if there is over a minute difference there... You must have had other things running in the background of your computer where his didn't have anything. When doing performance tests you must be sure that all other applications are closed and NOT running, even in the background. Small things like Instant Messengers, Explorers and other windows/programs/processes *can* take up valuable time. Having anything running will invalidate any
testing.

both tests were done with vista with all things shut down except essential ones and explorer killed to save even more