Look at the example here, three tiny hosts (I know it's just a theoretical learning example, but it's how people do it) with six CPUs where three would be cheaper and have better performance, and three hosts where two would be cheaper and have better performance.
Look at the cluster size, it's a total of 36 cores. You can do that better and cheaper using two, single socket servers with 18 cores each! If you needed a little extra during a failover, go for two at 20 cores each or whatever.
I'm not that knowledgeable with hardware, including processors and things.. but are you saying that single socket with x number of cores is better/faster than multiple sockets with x number of cores?
All other factors being equal, yes. The same power with fewer cores, fewer sockets, fewer procs is ideal. It's not very often you can get it apples to apples, but you can get pretty close with processors and cores in this range today.
A single 16 core X processor at Y speed is faster than two 8 core X processors at Y speed for nearly all things. This is because it gets all of its memory from a single source and doesn't need to pass as many workloads back and forth between processors. There is overhead to that that you can avoid.
And a single processor of double the cores is generally quite a bit cheaper than two of half as many cores.
ok, this is pretty much what I was assuming.