As David Schwartz already pointed out, such a comparison is daunting, if possible at all.
Assuming that one talks of processors of the same generation and price class and operating at the same or a very similar clock frequency, a single dual-core processor (or 2*N core processor) is usually superior to two single-core processors (or two N core processors).
Obviously, you cannot compare a 2-core Conroe to two single-core Sandy Bridges (does that even exist? -- but you get the point) in a very meaninful way. Likewise, you obviously can't compare processors when one has three times the cache size or twice the frequency.
Making the assumption that the CPUs are sufficiently similar, several things are necessarily not as optimal between two CPUs as within a single multi-core one:
- longer lanes both between the cores and to the RAM (millimeters/centimeters instead of micrometers)
- more "extra logic" needed for memory access
- more synchronization overhead for atomic operations
- Level-2 cache not shared
- chances are that there's NUMA
Thus, all in all, electric current, which moves at more or less fixed speed, has to go through a longer piece of wire, which takes time. Also, moving a thread to another idle core is not as trivial (it may be prohibitively expensive!) as it is on single a multi-core CPU. This limits the operating system's ability to utilize all available resources.
Therefore the answer to your question is: "No, not the same".