Your response makes no sense. I said CISC typically uses microcode. You responded “not always.” That’s what “typically means.” Not always.
However, it has been several decades since there has been a commercial CISC processor that did NOT use microcode. Every Intel and AMD processor has for at least 25-30 years.
Not sure why you mention “gates,” but you should know that “gates” are an unreliable measure of anything. There is no agreement on what a “gate” means, so people count transistors, not gates.
As for why Intel/AMD use more, it’s because they need to - the instruction decoder, microcode ROM, complicated memory contention circuits, etc. all require it. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t using microcode. They certainly are. You can even see the microcode ROMs on die photos - they are quite visible.