On this architecture if you added 15 percent better clocks to the AMD parts the gap for the majority of games would close quite a lot I suspect. Worse case scenarios are 20 percent deficit at 1080p, average is about 10 percent. The above tests show that IPC is very close.Actually my point about gaming (high refresh rate mostly) was that even at 5GHz I'll bet AMD will not match Intel. The ring bus beats Infinity Fabric for latency and games also want low latency. AMD may need 5.5 GHz (good luck with that) as 5.1 to 5.2 is pretty common for 9700K and 9900K.
For some heavily multithreaded games AMD have proven to be closer. This is one key component of the future for games. When new consoles arrive I think it will certainly end up having more multi core performance on PC utilised.
At the moment the consoles might use 7 threads but they are all pitifully slow. Upon moving those games to PC, any decent 4C/8T smashes it out of the park. That will rapidly cease. With such a large baseline (console) increase in CPU performance available to developers it'll definitely translate to greater multithreaded CPU demand in the next few years.
Then there is the next step for Zen 3, which looks like it should unify the L3 cache on a full 8 core chiplet instead of the current 4 core CCX design. There is definitely significant latency gains to be had even if there is only a limited scope for clock speed improvements.
To this end it seems apparent AMD are making bigger gains than Intel each generation. Intel might still be squeezing out a lead 12 months from now, however it seems to be shrinking with each iteration that AMD produce. Intel need 10nm desktop to work, and very soon.