My world is spinning which is quite interesting as I can't see straight but I can still touch type.
I can't safely chop onions but I can definitely talk rubbish online. Funny that.
So, to make the assumption that you have considered and disregarded the AMD platform for whatever reason (although this would be my personal preference as you get PCI-e 4 as well which is great for futureproofing as well as far more chance they won't mess you around on sockets)...
I'd go with moar cores. Back in the day of Intel dominance, AMD throwing more cores at their problems was just patching over their issues and as a result, no one with serious performance needs touched AMD and therefore real multithreading took a while to take off as programmers of high end software were not optimising for AMD's lacklustre, weirdly constructed CPUs. So more cores hasn't been the advantage it perhaps should be as games manufacturers liked to pump out one decent thread and rely on the IPC throughout. Hence Intel used to be best for gaming, no questions asked (although at a significant cost and AMD CPUs did present an excellent performance/£ proposition). I'd say that has now changed and games are now pumping out a few decent threads and you'd be bonkers to get anything less than 4 cores for gaming.
I'd then ignore the above as being irrelevant babble and remove gaming from the equation as both chips are more than capable of handling games now and into the future. Anandtech did an article on what CPUs are best for gaming and there was little difference at decent resolutions between an i3 and the higher spec CPUs. If gaming is your thing, throw more money at the GPU.
So, to Photoshop. There may be questions about multithreaded use now, but we finally have real competition in the high performance CPU "space" and we are seeing seriously high performance, comsumer and workstation chips, which can really scale performance properly and overclock / boost themselves on the fly on all cores (rather than one core at the expense of the others). As a result, even if there are current questions over multithreading performance, this is liable to change within the lifespan of your CPU of choice.
Given the clockspeed difference isn't that much, I'd go for MOAR cores.
I'd also consider that other applications are becoming properly multithreaded and so, whilst the small increase in clock speed would be nice all the time, the performance of the slightly slower CPU will be more than adequate. Then imagine what happens when someone releases an update which takes their software from single to multithreaded... that is a performance bump worth having. It's not going to run 4x faster but it'll scale pretty well if they've done it right with a suitable workload.
I'd also go for AMD. Just sayin'.
Also, remember that the Intel boost system has some serious limitations which you need to be aware of in comparison to AMD. For gaming it is certainly worth considering the base clock over the boost clock due to the nature of the workload. See below:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544...cted-tdp-turbo