You would hope but AMD's Cinebench demo at CES was a bit of a let down.
Why? IMO Lisa just wanted to show that "The Worlds Fastest Gaming CPU" is just the baseline of the new Zen 2 8C/16T, so she just made LOL from 9900K with ~70W CPU.
Also if it can match 9900K with such low power- IMO you could get ~25% OC and stay under 130W of 2700X.
The 9900k is a 95w chip, some Ryzen boards allow the 2700x to go up to 130w with XFR2 when properly cooled.
Yes? And many Intel boards have the 9900K working outside of Intel's guidelines out of the box, exceeding the 95w TDP by a lot, hence what I said. Technically and unlike AMD (unless you use PBO, which clearly states is outside the warranty), that puts the CPUs working outside of the warranty, although I'm mostly sure at this point that by not enforcing those guidelines, Intel is ok with it because it paints the 9900K in a better light and will thus honour all such warranties.
Unless an application is extremely parallel the benefit over 6 cores is low anyhow (Amdahl's law) so unless there's power improvements I don't think this CPU will be worthwhile as it will be over ~180W in practice based off i9-9900k with the stock TDP off.
With Ryzen the boost from 6 to 8 cores wasn't just from cores but due to the fact that 4 cores make up a CCX. Anything using 4 cores or more would have increased chance for cross CCX communication. If you compare i9-9900k / i7-9700K vs i7-8700K / i5-9600K there's a far lower gain.
So they are going to add 2 more cores to the mainstream line. I guess that's going to mean that the top processor on the mainstream line will be $700? That should be a bargain for anyone who has purchased a 10 core Intel CPU in the past, and I'm sure the CPU will stand out in at least one statistic so that customers can justify the price.