It was the i7-8086k in honor of the first 8086 CPUs and it had at least 300Mhz more base and turbo,not much but it was better.
Under nearly all real-world usage scenarios, it performed almost identical to the 8700K. Motherboards tend to ignore the base clocks by default, so the only real difference is in single-core boost clocks, while multi-core boost clocks remained the same. With two or more cores in use, it was pretty much just an 8700K, and reviewers mentioned having a hard time getting the higher single-core clocks to activate due to background processes keeping more than one core active. It also sold at a pretty big price premium over the 8700K.
The Ryzen 2700X anniversary edition was a bit pointless too though, since people knew the much-improved 3000-series would be launching a couple months later. It would have been a better release for January rather than May.
Intel more than doubled the money they make in the last two years,as soon as ryzen released, so desperation for sales is way out of the question.
Ryzen launched in early 2017, and according to your numbers, Intel saw a 7% decline in sales that year. Only after they effectively slashed prices for a given level of performance with Coffee Lake at the end of the year did sales improve. So, not exactly "as soon as Ryzen released". And as I said before, that only makes sense, since Intel had been milking quad-cores as "premium" processors for so many years, that people had been holding out on upgrading for a long time. Once Ryzen launched with competitive performance and significantly more cores for the money, and Intel responded with Coffee Lake, people finally saw hardware worth upgrading to, so it's only natural that both would be seeing substantially higher sales than in prior years.
That, of course, doesn't mean those sales will keep up though. Once people have those higher core-count processors, they will have less incentive to upgrade in the coming years, and it's likely that AMD forced Intel's hand into cutting price-per-core faster than they would have preferred, to avoid losing significant sales. I wouldn't say Intel is in "desperation" by any means, but they arguably are not sitting as comfortably as they were back when they practically owned the market, even if short-term sales are up.