I'm sure other companies like AMD can figure out the transistor count without consulting the Intel press release. If Intel isn't publishing a figure like total transistor count, it's for marketing purposes. All indicators point to the fact that Intel is struggling at the 14mm process.
I've been thinking about this lately, and between the jihad against lead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_pest) and these machines storing the BIOS etc. in flash memory, I'm beginning to doubt it.
The 486 was produced in a 1um (1000nm) to 600nm process and runs on 5V+/-5% (4.75-5.25, a 250mV range), with an absolute maximum of 6.5V.
The 14nm Skylake has a core voltage of ~1V, tolerance of a few tens of mV, and an absolute maximum of 1.52V.
Electromigration will likely become a significant source of IC failures in the future.
This is significant because as structure sizes become smaller, the restrictions on possible layouts (so called DRCs, design rule constraints) become ever stricter. For example, you can't just place wires wherever you want; you have to take into account the relationship to other wires. With stricter rules, the end result may be that the effective scaling achieved is worse than what the structure size suggests, because the rules force a lower density of transitors.
So what are Intel hiding? Are they far ahead of the competition in terms of DRCs and don't want others to know how much, or are they struggling (like apparently everybody else) and want to hide a less-than-ideal effective scaling? Obviously, your guess is as good as mine, but it's certainly fascinating to watch the competition as Moore's law is coming to an end.