Ah Intel hasn't moved on a architectural standpoint, but they have improved there node. Honestly it's likely because the 14nm node was so bad to start off with that there was soo much room for improvement, well when I say bad the original Intel 14nm node for transistor performance was still a little bit better than GloFo's licenced 14LPP node. So when I say it was bad I simply mean it wasn't much of an improvement over the 22nm node in performance.
So there was a lot of gas left in the tank, because as much as you can say that the 14nm++ node isn't a new node and they didn't change the architecture it was still a pretty good improvement being able to increase the core count by 50% and only increase power consumption by a few watts over there previous CPU and maintain the all core boost clock is pretty impressive for a simple refinement of a node.
I don't like Intel as a company, but I am not going to sit here and say there products are complete **** in the mainstream market right now Intel is generally the better option unless you are a power user on a budget.
And believe me I am hype AF for Zen 2, probable 4.8Ghz+ single core turbos, probably 12 cores, probably a ~5% IPC increase over Zen+, but I assume in some places AMD will still come out marginally behind due to the latency of the infinity fabric, even if AMD manages to cut it in halve cross CCX communication will still be slower than Intel's ring bus which will continue to effect AMDs gaming performance.
BUT!!! I think you will get 95% of Intel's performance where AMD loses, which given that you should be getting ~40% extra multi threaded performance, and honestly if you are complaining about 95 FPS vs 100 FPS I think you are probably a fanboy and should be ignored.
So basically I think any reasonable person would choice AMD at that point.
