You are wrong ... a little education and research can go a long way. More cores is the direction that is required for improved performance. Let's ask why? Right now a firstname.lastname@example.org can pull up to 250w through socket. Yup, up to 250w - that's insane - the same as a 16 core threadripper.In what universe do you expect "sooner" to be any sort of reality? It will only be later and much later. How long has been since the first "moar cores" cry? Like 2006? Where are we now, 2019....
"Moar cores" is just moar marketing tripe to mislead the gullible.
"But doesn't Intel hold the efficiency crown?" -- well it used to, for sure. But what happened was that in order to stave off Ryzen three years ago, Intel was running low on options on how they could tweak their architecture for improved IPC so they just made faster cores. All they way up to the limit of x86 silicon, which is ~5ghz. AMD also found this 5ghz limit with Bulldozer.
So does anyone think that a 6ghz "faster" core, if even from Intel, is possible? It would be pulling more power through the socket than almost any cooling solution could deal with. Its not possible without becoming the laughing stock of power efficiency - especially when AMD now has 16 core at 105w TDP. What would an 8 core intel 14nm "6ghz" pull? 400-500w under full load? It would be a joke.
The solution to getting the power under control is by using a node shrink so that less overall power can be used. The problem with node shrinks is you have to decrease frequency on every node shrink (although AMD didn't have that issue this time - 1) they got lucky 2) zen one didn't have high clocks to start with) - that's just the way it is. So now that we can introduce node shrink, how do we combat the lower frequencies created by node shrink? Find ways to increase IPC ... easier said then done.
You see its all getting into the territory of greatly diminishing returns ... 6ghz will never happen, Intel can't do anything more on 14nm because they have already refined that node to entirely its potential -- there's nothing left to give -- I hear some people crying on here "the AMD is barely faster than 7th gen" - well so is Intel 9th gen and in some cases slower (gaming cases) ... why? Why hasn't Intel been able to make faster cores since the 7th gen? If making faster cores instead of more cores is what will make intel win ... why haven't they been able to make anything faster than 5ghz? It should be easy right? Or maybe they just simply ... can't.
What a conundrum if you are a processor manufacture ... what's the solution? You can always keep increasing performance with more resources (cores).
I personally love the ability to multitask, I can encode video or render 3D animations/vfx in the background WHILE playing games, I don't have to close all my applications just so I can get great game performance (lol), and I can do 10 things at once. You couldn't do any of that even if you had quad core that was 6ghz, lol. Not even close.
Now when you add in that I use my GPU to ensure my CPU is NOT the bottleneck (the reason the GPU was invented) for gaming, the gaming performance for my use would be exactly identical to email@example.comOC for my use ... so I can get the exact same gaming in real life scenarios, because please people its the GPU that does gaming ... why did everyone forget this? On top of that I can do multithreaded tasks (assuming I have a 3900x) at least 50% faster than a 9900k -- all that for the same price.
So please stop the "we don't want cores!" Intel propaganda. If Intel could do multi-core like AMD, they'd have everyone trained to be singing a different tune ... I promise you that. (Cinebench used to be one of Intel's prized benchmarks - now they are trying to get reviewers and journalists to abandon it ... funny eh?)
Even phones are getting more cores ... time to get with the times ...