You're going to have to substantiate your claim that the Skylake uarch, and its derivatives, have ingrained scalability and security issues. Sunny Cove is a derivative of Skylake, which is a derivative of Sandy Bridge, and the IPC increase from the original SNB parts to those of today are massive. Not to mention that SKL => SNC is supposedly an 18% IPC improvement again... a uarch that can be competitive for nearly a decade sounds pretty scalable to me.
Scalability comes down the to the monolithic die design - To achieve scalability for servers and higher core counts, Intel switched to a completely different ring bus for cores for the first half of last decade, and then upgraded to a more scalable mesh network when that run out of steam. The desktop parts saw almost none of that and they're still essentially the quad-core design of Sandy bridge scaled up to near breaking point at 8 and 10-core SKUs.
As for security, you only have to go back and look at the 'Watergate' moment for Intel - Spectre and Meltdown. Meltdown targeted intel's complete lack of privilege checking for data in the pipeline, so Intel's performance for out-of-order pipeline execution was good, simply because they weren't doing half of the security and data isolation that a
responsible design should be doing. AMD and Arm designs are immune to this because AFAIK they have proper privilege checking on any data in cache or other stores in the pipeline for SMT/Hyperthreading.
Spec-ex attacks, of which Spectre was the first and most painful for Intel also don't affect AMD or Arm as badly. They do target a specific architecture, so that regard Intel is a victim of its own popularity, but at the same time the mitigations AMD put out for the first two variants (back when x/y benchmarking was being tested on the mitigation performance impacts) had almost no performance loss on AMD (1-2%) Whilst Intel was seeing double-digit losses from some applications. Without more experience and understanding of exactly how the patches work, I can only guess that Intel had more holes to patch than AMD, which is why they only bothered with some of the exploits (leaving Microsoft to fill in the gaps) and even then the firmware patches they did write offended the Linux crowd - which mattered a lot because a lot of the datacenters hit worst by Spectre were running linux servers on Intel.
Now, moving to architecture, current, as far as I know Intel has the best IPC core with Ice Lake, it is 5-10% better than Zen 2, so get your facts straight.
Do you have an apples-to-apples article I can read for that? I'm not doubting you've read that somewhere but right now there's no direct comparison because Intel haven't managed to get Ice Lake onto desktop. Renoir would be the closest match to Ice Lake as a monolithic die using Zen2 but a big part of Ice Lake was larger caches and Renoir is specifically a cut-down version of Zen2 with smaller caches to keep production costs relevant to the target market. Renoir has a quarter the cache of Mattise, so it's far more reliant on RAM speeds yet is normally paired with DDR4-3200 instead of the LPDDR4X that usually goes with the i7-1065G7. Additionally, I've not seen any fixed-clock tests of Ice Lake as they are all mostly mainstream laptop parts with notoriously useless OEM BIOSes when it comes to benchmarking and tweaking.
If you have a valid link please share, I want to see (real world) how Sunny Cove is doing but there's simply no straight-up comparison I've found that can be extrapolated to how well it would fare on a desktop or server-scale part.
