dudmont :
In regards to real cores vs. virtual cores, real cores beat virtual cores every time. Look at I5-8600k vs I7 7700k.
How much of the slight performance drop compared to I5-8600k could be because of spectre/meltdown hardware changes?
Sure the physical cores beat them, but being able to service more threads is very beneficial.
Even in terms of pure performance, surprisingly the 6C/6T 8600k (at 50% more cores) performs pretty much in a similar way to the 4C/8T 7700k, while the 9700k at 8C/8T has only a 33% core advantage compared to the 8700k's 6C/12T, making it a much more questionable choice.
While there has been a long-lasting discussion on hyperthreading in games, the quad core i7s are proving right now that it's exactly where the largest advantage lies, as the last few threads are rarely as demanding (due to games being the furthest from offering a symmetrical load across all threads) and just being able to service those threads without needing the full attention of a single-threaded core is perfectly good enough. Basically while having less cores might lower your fps a bit, those extra threads essentially prevent stuttering caused by having threads on hold. In that regard, I believe a 6C/12T CPU would be a better choice than a 8C/8T CPU, as the latter is likely to choke faster, given enough threads that need to be run asap thrown at it (such as in gaming).
Sure, the problem starts when we run software that's able to divide the workload into >4 (for HT quad-cores) super heavy threads capable of loading CPU cores to the max, but with gaming, that's not yet the case - you usually need to service a few main fast threads and a few less demanding ones popping up, including system interrupts, at the same time. In this regard, the hyperthreaded 6C and 8C will add a similar longevity advantage, especially where games are concerned. Even more so in case of the 6C/12T vs 8C/8T, where the hypethreaded hexa-cores are able to service 50% more threads at a time, which might actually turn out better in the end than having a 8C/8T processor. I suspect the 8c/8t will perform similarly at best when fully loaded by heavy threads (with extremely rare non-HT workloads doing better), and be a worse choice in a lot of workloads that rely on a few main threads and are heavy on high-prority light threads at the same time, which is more typical of where everyday usage has been going.
Tl;dr There are going to be workloads that not only are faster on the hyperthreaded units, but workloads that are able to service unevenly demanding threads at the same time (with a few demanding and a few less demanding threads) will benefit from being able to run those extra processes at the same time, even if each of them will be a bit slower. That is very beneficial in perhaps more scenarios than just having 33% extra physical cores.