I don't understand the confusion.
IPC is similar but AMD perhaps is on par with Broadwell (if not Haswell).
AMD isn't clocking as high as Kabylake or Skylake (even on 4 core parts).
For gaming, Intel will give the fps edge.
You don't need 4+ cores...yet.
If you don't run on a budget - buy Intel.
If you do run on a budget and wont use 8 cores - buy Intel.
If you're changing from a 6 core Intel - buy a Ryzen 8 core for the same price or less.
If you're chaning your old 4 core - buy a Kabylake chip (unless you NEED 8 cores).
Simple.
EDIT - I am perfectly happy going from a 4.2Ghz 6 core Sandy-E to a 8 core Ryzen at a stable 3.85Ghz.
Except it's not as "simple" as that.
1. There's more to judging game performance than just measuring FPS. Many games can exhibit stutter even when FPS is high.
2. Many keep their CPU/MB for a long time. Five years or more can be common. I've been on my i7-950 for well more than that. We don't yet know how 8 cores will compare to quad cores in 3 years, let alone 5 or more. For those on older chips like mine, you want to think ahead far more than a few years to make your choice.
3. Since 8 cores are inherently clocked lower than quads (same with Intel), it makes more sense to compare core to core.
4. For the above reason, many try to OC their 8 cores as high as possible. Therein lies the only confusion regarding Ryzen 8 cores, but only because AMD blundered in not ironing out details with MB and RAM manufacturers. The result is it can be a pain to make a Ryzen perform best.
5. For the above reason there will be much less confusion once AMD releases their finalized dividers.
That said, were it a quad vs quad discussion, I'd agree that AMD's quad Ryzens don't compare favorably to Intel's quads. I expected them to be clocked much higher.
