Holy frkn' shhhhhh...
Looking at NOTHING ELSE, just the Cinebench Single Thread score,
Intel 10900k , 544
AMD 5900x, 633, that's +16% just cinebench
5900x also has + 21% League of legend FPS, + 19% CS Go FPS vs the 10900k. IPC INSANE
Show Image
(https://i.imgur.com/UzALKpm.gif)
The problem i see with those comparisons is that it is next gen AMD vs current gen Intel, they both do it and it never make sense, if it was not faster there would be no point on making a new cpu... and no i am not an Intel fanboy, i point out the same thing when i see it on intel's side. i am just a marketing hateboy... this is just to hype you up just i expect the difference on same generation to be smaller, i do not expect intel to beat AMD at multi-thread yet though or actually at all, but you never know.
AMD is using a hybrid 7nm and 10nm(?), one size is trace the other is for the gaps between them. Intel uses a true process where the trace and gaps are even. Intel is considering a similar approach and a larger die size in order to stop the bleeding but even if they drop to a smaller size, it will not help computer speeds much. Sure you will see Intel break 5ghz with ease but that's only going to be a small improvement. Clockspeed and cores aren't the bottleneck they once were.
Not sure going smaller would help with frequencies, actually i am pretty sure it would hurt it, as the smaller you go the higher the capacitance, and so the lower the frequency you can reach before your cpu just act as one big resistor. right now intel goes high in frequency like they did with Netburst, they use bigger and "very" old and mature tech so they know how to push it further. and as intel proved in the past frequency is not actually that important (Pentium 4 vs Athlon x2)