In benches maybe but not real usage. I disagree for real-world scenarios.
1. Multiplayer like BF1 is hardly ever benched and here multi-core wins (Stock broadwell-e beat 7700k easily for example)
2. Streaming
3. General background tasks. A PC for benching usually runs 0 background stuff, probably of the network, no AV and so forth. So not really a realistic scenario. Hence 2 more cores actually help in real-world when 4 are 100% used for your gaming load, and background process will lead to fps drop.
I wonder if a 6C BW-E beats a 7700K that easily in BF1? I'm sure it beats it, because BF1 does like more cores.
But the CFL chip won't have the extra cache that a 6C BW-E has, so it may be somewhat slower in games, which seem to like cache.
It won't have the memory bandwidth that a BW-E chip has, either. It will have about half.
BF1 seems to be the game that is always trotted out for the number of cores argument.