Mate I know people who have been building PC's since the 1980's and they don't know shit about gaming computers. Just because you know how to build a computer (Which a trained monkey could do nowdays) doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else.
Cyg knows his shit, not a fight you want.
No, he's speaking to the fact that your assessment is feeble. In 2012, the decision was a matter of cores: 8x lower-performance AMD cores vs. 4x higher-performance Intel cores. For gaming, the latter strategy won impressively in the short term. It lost the long-term fight, but that didn't matter. This fundamental divide in strategy is still there, but greatly diminished, and the reason was Ryzen itself. The Intel 8th Gen was released unexpectedly early by a wide margin, and it was obvious to everyone this was their response to Ryzen, so don't expect another counterpunch like that from Intel. We already got it.
Now it is 6- core & 8-core Ryzen processors vs. 4-core & 6-core Intel processors.
Additionally, more cores is finally starting to pay off because of the mobile gaming world, ironically, due to developers' renewed sense of urgency in getting more out of the metal because of the proliferation of devices running on the cheaper, higher-core processors. There is diminishing returns on this as described by Amdahl's Law, but at least they're making a more concerted effort to parallelize as much tasking as they can.
The reason is they simply must. It's inevitable for progress. There is only so much water you can squeeze from a stone. Colloquially many have long referred to this as the "5GHz Wall". The original race to 3GHz eventually ran into this wall. They can pass that, but effectively, that wall still exists. Look at how far Turbo Modes have come on the stock Intel processors. They essentially overclock themselves, but only when it makes sense, yet none of them overclock to 5GHz or above. Enthusiasts who want to meaningful surpass that use LN2. That Turbo is showing you where Intel architecture is comfortable without these cost-ineffective cooling solutions. 5.5GHz is still the highest frequency ever for a production processor sold at stock. The world record frequency
ever achieved is 8.805GHz. The ruling principle we are approaching, here, is that light only travels so fast, and the faster you let it run, the more heat it is going to generate. As you approach this asymptote, the cost for incremental improvements becomes enormous, and you are limited by the physical laws of the universe.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/122050/what-limits-cpu-speed
While it's clear that Intel was essentially hoarding its architectural advantage on stock cooling, releasing only enough to beat AMD, but keeping some of it in reserve, obfuscated, the 8th Gen revealed to us again where they sit.
I do interpret the spirit of your comment. Your fear is that Intel might decide in the 9th Gen to shift again and sell an 8-core i7 in the same $300-$350 MSRP range that the Coffee Lake i7s currently inhabit. I suppose that's a possibility, but Ryzen isn't scared. If you want to get an idea of that worst case scenario you should look at the i7-7820X vs. R7-2700X overclocked.
UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-7820X
There's a reason that processor was released at $599 and already sits at $460. A year ago, before Coffee Lake, any Intel 8+ core processor of that class was going for $850 or more. Your fear is that they release this processor with the i7-8700K MSRP.
No risk with Ryzen, indeed.