I'm not happy seeing WCCFTech-sourced content show up on Tom's. I have seen so much incorrect information show up on WCCFTech that I do not trust the site even on mild leaks. I wish their information was good because I'd have much stronger computers than I do now.
If this information is true, then I'm surprised to see Intel content to lag 2 cores behind AMD. Intel tends to like parity and slightly higher prices. I'm not sure Intel has realized that the latest AMD products are beating the Intel ones in both performance and power consumption. It's time for Intel to deliver their answer to Ryzen. Comet Lake isn't it if these specs are true.
I agree on the WCCFTech. I have seen rumors there change over night for the same product.
That said, Intel still has a performance edge, still ever so slightly higher IPC depending on the task, in desktop especially being able to clock 8 cores to 5GHz.
Desktop is however not the most important market. If I were to set them myself it would go HPC/Server, mobile (laptops and such) and then desktop and then allll the way to the very very end is the enthusiast (us) market. HPC/Server makes vastly higher margins and mobile sells vastly more volume than desktops.
Thats why there are 10nm parts in mobile, where AMD doesn't have as competitive of a processor (they max out at 4 cores while Intel has up to 6) with current plans, unless it changes, for server 10nm parts next. Desktop I am not sure. I almost think they would be better off skipping 10nm desktop and going to 7nm along with skipping Sunny Cove and going with Golden Cove.