Of course Intel would prefer to sell 32 expensive server CPUs instead of just one expensive server CPU.

Competition is good. We are lucky to have AMD.

So would AMD, density optimized cores like Zen4C would likely not be a priority without e-cores and products like Sierra Forest being on the roadmap. The question now would be just how far would this density optimization path would go. AMD right now minimized the core size by stripping out cache and lowering the frequency target considerably. Intel went with an approach that also includes a full hybrid design where you get smaller cores with fewer features hence why the e-cores are still fare smaller than Zen4C.

To be fair, most people don't need more than 4 cores on desktops.

Zen4c and Ampere chips are for data centers.

3930K came out over 10 years ago, my man.

5820K was almost 9 years ago.

8700K was almost 6 years ago now.

If $375 was too much for a hexacore that was your choice for many many years, for a long time now the market simply preferred the quad cores.

I'm not an Intel mouthpiece, and I still don't have a clue what regular power users (including me) use more than 4 cores for.

Speaking from experience, I don't run that many parallel workloads (I don't know how parallel my compiles are), but when I do, given a specific TDP for a desktop processor, and the asymptotically diminishing returns due to lower clocks speeds, more memory/cache contention and more synchronization, the benefits of going for more than 4-6 cores are negligible, for parallel workloads.

These are server/workstation chips anyway.

10 years ago Intel was selling Xeon Phis, 60 little cores on a PCIe card.

Coincidentally the CEO/founder of Ampere worked at Intel at the time.