When AMD came out with the Zen3 generation and the claim was a 19 percent IPC improvement over Zen2, the initial thought by some was what we see from Intel, "Lets see how things really are in independent tests". Intel claimed a 19 percent IPC improvement in Rocket Lake compared to Comet Lake, but then the real tests showed an average of 9 percent, but then, a real world improvement of 0 improvement. Compare that to Zen3, where there really does seem to have been a 19% improvement in IPC over Zen2, with significant performance improvements.
Now, for Intel to actually get back to being competitive, a proper MCM design is needed, since these monolithic designs make higher core counts VERY difficult and expensive. The reason AMD can crank out 64 core chips is because AMD can just combine eight different 8-core CCDs into the same chip, and the fab process for those isn't a problem. So, after over four years of AMD doing well with a MCM design(using Infinity Fabric to link each CCX/CCD together), why doesn't Intel have a competing technology?