No, it's actually important. There *was* a 2.33ghz C2Q CPU, the
Yorkfield Q8200. And compared to the Q6600 it legitimately sucks serious arse, so when you accuse the Q6600 of being the same thing you're seriously insulting it.
(Context why I know this: This was the period where Intel decided that it was a good marketing move to position certain CPUFlag features, like VT-x virtualization support, as "pay extra" options they'd disable on their cheaper models. The Q6600, despite being the bottom rung model in terms of clock rate in its generation, is a "full fat" CPU with all the same flags as the top-of-the-line Extreme models enabled. When Intel pushed out the Yorkfields they split the line into 8xxx and 9xxx models, and the differences were twofold:
1: The 8xxxs had only four MB of L2 cache, unlike the six or 12 of the 9xxx's. (Or the 8MB of the Kentsfields like the Q6600s)
2: The 8xxxs had VT-x disabled.
It's the latter thing that really sucked. Granted it didn't matter much for a desktop, but someone I knew bought a rack full of 8xxx equipped pizza boxes for a dev lab without understanding the difference and it caused a serious headache for them. I mean, sure, their fault, they should have read the manual, but still... boo.