Pretty weird that so many folks seem to factor in the base clocks for Ryzen against, in some cases, single core turbo for Intel.
The 3DMark scores, accurate or not, are suggesting 6-11% behind Kaby Lake, if you factor in the all cores turbo clocks for everybody.
So above the 200$ price point, AMD wins with more cores, even in gaming and anyone saying differently,deserves to buy an Intel. You are not gonna be bottlenecked with either one in a realistic scenario. If some person has a 4k display or a GTX1080 and games at 1080p, that person needs medication not a new PC. At any display res that fits the GPU, there won't be a downside from more cores but there can be an upside in games that scale and a larger long term upside as more games start to scale. Aside from the upside in apps, not sure why some pretend that PCs are just for gaming.
Bellow 200$, AMD would likely match or beat Intel in ST (vs i5 7500 and 7400), if we include ST turbo and ofc offer more cache and threads.
Next year, If Zen+ gains a bit, they can catch up. Intel's core is very mature by now and their 15+% claimed gain is not in ST perf, it's overall with some impact from GPU and video encoder. We are gonna see again a minimal boost in ST, mostly from clocks. AMD with a new core might get 10-15% IPC boost with Zen+