You math won't work because it does not scale linearly with CPU clock. Battlefield 4
scales very well over 4 cores, this game alone has an impact of the overall game index to some degree. There is clearly a performance advantage in place for CPUs over 4 cores in the gaming index.
Your math does not work since 4 of the 6 games,tested don't scale well with SMT or beyond 4 cores,so trying to twist the results by looking at only one of the six games is funny.
A Haswell Core i3 dual core,is faster in 4 of the 6 games than an FX8350. Nice,try but you and your mates are not really doing very well,are you??
The socket 2011 CPUs also have much larger caches,etc which do help a bit,just like the Broadwell CPUs with L4 cache which nicely helped with performance.
First it is you and your mates on purpose ignoring this is a validation sample CPU not running at full clockspeeds,then secondly you ignore the Core i7 6900K on purpose,now you make excuses when it is evident the Core i7 6900K performance advantage is due to clockspeeds,and lastly you then make sure you ignore 4 of the 6 games tested not scaling that well with SMT,etc.
You and your mates are trying every trick you can to bury the results,but there is only one way AMD has managed to get to within 10% of a Core i7 6900K in those games,its via a massive jump in per core performance and not better SMT performance.
AMD touted close to Broadwell E IPC,and now an independent review of a lower clockspeed validation sample on a pre-production motherboard is hinting at the same from a well known magazine in Europe,but no its all some conspiracy,right??
Try your luck with someone else,mate!
This is getting to stupid levels now. Its almost like some don't want competition in the market for some absolutely weird reason. Some of us remember the good old days back 15 years ago. It was a great time for enthusiasts and it makes me wonder whether some of the younger folk have forgotten what proper competition did in the CPU space.