The real deal here is that the AMD X2 has two separate 512kb L2 cache banks....one for each core.
The Woodcrest has a single 4mb L2 cache. This cache is shared between the two cores so that any single core can access the entire 4mb of cache. This means that the 5130 has 4x the L2 cache (2x512 for AMD versus 1x 4mb for Intel)... and each core can grab up to 8x the cache of the AMD X2. (1x512kb versus 4mb for Intel).
The difference in clock speed is offset by the huge difference in L2. The biggest knock on these Intel's is that they aren't as good as the COULD HAVE BEEN... not that they aren't better than the rest of the market. The next generations of these will have much better cache predictor logic and FSB architecture (hopefully so the cores can talk to each other without using the FSB)
Which one is faster? I guess it depends... faster at WHAT? For tasks that are clock speed intensive (number crunching, rendering) the AMD may be faster, but for tasks that involve leaving the processor core itself (getting things from memory/bus) then the Intel will win handily.
I would characterize webhosting as disk i/o and ram intensive tasks for the processor. It is constantly going back and forth between the RAM and HDD's rather then just chewing up calculations on the core itself. This type of work benefits greatly from the 4mb cache of the 5130.
Even further than that... a 2x 5130 is better than a 1x 5330 because of the separate FSB's that each package would have over the single FSB for the 5300's. If you have a choice between a single clovertown versus a dual woodcrest I'd go with the woodies. Use the clovers if you are really stingy with a buck and don't want to pay for two separate procs, or if you are using a mobo with only 1 socket.