For the record: Even the previous Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition had a price-tag of no less than $990 USD at release, for just six cores! Thus for just two cores more than their ordinary quad-core, which went for ~$250 USD.

While the i7-4960X EE offered only mere 50% more cores/threads, it also came at a price-tag of easily 4× as much as the cheapest lame-o Intel quad-core – 50% Cores/threads vs 400% price-increase.
A intentional totally skewed price-performance ratio done fully on purpose, for deliberately keeping 6-Core CPUs way out of reach for the ordinary, and the mainstream at expensive dual-cores only and quad-cores at max.

Now keep in mind here, that this very Intel consumer SKU (for personal consumers and private end-users, at last) came out by end of Q3 2013 – Already +3 years AFTER AMD had already successfully introduced their instantly adopted and wide-spread Phenom X6 hexa-core CPUs in 2010 – AMD released its first server-class 6-Core Opteron server CPU, known as “Istanbul”, the then previous year in June 2009 by the way.

So it was not up until Intel's 4th Gen Intel Core with Ivy Bridge-E, that Santa Clara even offered anything hexa-core for ordinary consumers in form of the aforementioned vastly over-expensive i7-4960X for no less than $990 USD (apart from the severely cache-crippled i7-4930K, released the very same day on September 10th, 2013 … for $555 USD!) – AMD's first hexa-core for the private end-user, went on sale as Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition already more than 3 years earlier in April 2010, released for $295 USD only …

So even the only other six-core next to the i7-4960X EE, the i7-4930K, was not only severely cache-crippled (and clocked lower too), but cost no less than already basically twice as much as AMD's first top-of-the-line 6-core CPU, when the actual street-price for the i7-4930K of course came in higher with $583 USD at release, nonewithstanding the fact that the actual Intel-MSRP was $555 USD. Bummer, I guess.

So there you have it. Even Intel's offering of hexa-cores before were always at least 2;times as pricey as AMD's offerings of their 6-Core CPUs, making Intel's offerings often barely existing in the first place as any viable option to begin with. And that should be the overall final conclusion.

As said before, Intel deliberately made all of it so and wanted to keep the market by all means with utmost pressure for years at their decreed perfect conditions to milk it dry: → Dual-cores for the ordinaries, Quad-cores at max, Hexa-cores only for the really wealthy ones with deep pockets.

Correction: You jumped onto a statement of mine, which (evidently!) had me WRONGLY claiming, that the i7-5960X would (even at Intel's official SRP/RRP) cost "4–5× as much as a whole rig/was whole rig's worth" (which is nonsense, for obvious reason). Instead of the actual correct assessment: “4–5× as much as a regular quad-core CPU”) at that time.

… which is actually true and the very thing what I was trying to point out, of course.
So we accidentally talked past each other here – My bad!

They also offered quad channel memory and extra pcie lanes.

It doesn't really matter what alleged particular technical advantages a given product offers, if said advantageous attributes *only* come at such a fundamentally disproportionate cost-benefit ratio and its (deliberately) totally whack and skewed price-performance ratio, that basically no-one would tap into and engage with it anyway … Since it makes no sense to do so!

That's just nuts (and missing bolts for the blocked head), and no-one (sane) does that,
when each and every, all thoughtful cost-effectiveness considerations are out of balance.

It's basically Optane 2.0, and the very reason why it failed – Hypothetical vast advantages, which only ever came with incredibly stoop!d (already well-subsidized and artificially brought-down) still vast price-tags.

That's also the same idiotic try-hard move from Intel their Skylake-X was, with their quad-cores on LGA-2066 – Artificially lure in clueless consumers into their vastly overpriced already dying HEDT-platform.

Their Skylake-X quad-cores on the X299-Chipset in the form of Core i7-7740X and Core i5-7640X (as Kabylake-X), were virtually nothing but the Core i7-7700K in disguise for the Sockel LGA-2066.

Just nuts and a daft part of the Skylake-X portfolio, which didn't really had any raison d'être in the first place. — Another lame-o try of Intel to curtain the market (To maintain the consumers perception, that dual-cores has to be 'good enough' for the peasants and quad-cores ought to be enough for anyone else, as decreed by Intel), was their even more whack Kaby Lake-based Intel Core i3-7350K back in the days in 2017.

A petty meaningless yet unlocked, mercilessly pumped-up dual-core for their z170/270 chipset.
It was, of course, vastly overpriced as is right and proper for Santa Clara since ever.

So even by 2017, when AMD already was well underway to phase out decade-old, for sure hopelessly insufficient and outdated Dual-Cores once and for all for good now, tried to push the market's overall technological advancements for the good of all and the rest of us, while being just about to establish 4 cores as the bare minimum to deal with, 6 cores as lower mainstream and at least 8-Cores as the high-end of mainstream as the new normal (with AMD's Threadripper topping out at 16 cores as HEDT and for anything beyond that to come and just around the corner) …

… Intel again went demonstratively in the direction of the polar opposite, when Santa Clara tried nothing but to dial back the market to where it was already a decade ago: Trying to establish already decade-old, well obsolete dual-cores for their high-end platform – The Unlocked i3 Cometh!

Keep in mind, Intel tried the very same already with the Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition in 2014.