4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K

[Julio Franco]

#ThrowBackThursday Expanding upon all the testing we performed in our day-one 3rd-gen Ryzen coverage, today we'll be running a clock-for-clock comparison benchmark. IPC can be a good indicator of a processor's architecture efficiency, so we're pitting the new Ryzen 3900X and 3700X against Intel's Core i9-9900K.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/

 

[lordtux]

Very good analysis, is possible to perform a more deeper analysis to investigate if the games analyzed are really latency sensitive? I know that is a common sense that games are but wich evidences we have that is really latency taking the biggest influence in some results and no a poor optimization?

 

[MikitaM]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

 

[Christiaaan]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

This test is pointless, its like handing capping a corvette to 4 cylinders and testing against a honda civic.

 

[amstech]

I like the comparison, it shows that if you retard Intel's chips, you will be down to Ryzen performance levels. It also shows that the IPC difference, while a huge upgrade for AMD, is still inferior to Intel's in many tests/categories.
The AIDA64 cache and latency tests are quite interesting, amazing the 9900K is still taking the cake here while being held back.

The 9900K also takes the first place in Far Cry New Dawn, beating the 3900X by a 5% margin for the average frame rate, and 10% for the 1% low result. This is while running at a frequency lower than out of the box.

This puts to bed the idea that Ryzen would be faster at the same clocks.
It's performance is not any better, and actually is still a little slower at the same clock speeds, so Intel's architecture for many uses is still superior.
We all know that from a gaming standpoint, without being retarded, its much faster...crazy its still faster while being retarded.
The 9900K puts a whooping on the 3700X before its overclocked, and the 8700K can easily beat a 9900K when overclocked. When I said the 3700K would only be able to match a STOCK, old $200 7700K in games, I didn't think I would be right on the money.

 

[Puiu]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

Gamers Nexus should have what you want (it also has SMT ON/OFF results):

 

[Twigs]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

I seen a cpuz benchmark of a 3900x at 4.35 pulling 554 single thread and 9120 multi. Pretty impressive.

 

[yeeeeman]

Intel is better in gaming because of lower latency of the ring bus. That also ensures low latency to memory. Still, Intel cannot go further with cores without losing money, because it is one thing to make a 16 core CPU out of small chips, that yield well, compared to one big monolithic die (like 9960X has), which has a much higher chance of being bad.
So yeah, I think AMD is well aware of the trade-offs they made with their architecture and really, gaming performance is so good nowadays that one should choose 9900K only to brag that they get 260FPS in one game compared to 240FPS with Ryzen. I can't see this as a cons for not choosing Ryzen...

 

[Tristann]

I like the comparison, it shows that if you retard Intel's chips, you will be down to Ryzen performance levels. It also shows that the IPC difference, while a huge upgrade for AMD, is still inferior to Intel's in many tests/categories.
The AIDA64 cache and latency tests are quite interesting, amazing the 9900K is still taking the cake here while being held back.

This puts to bed the idea that Ryzen would be faster at the same clocks.
It's performance is not any better, and actually is still a little slower at the same clock speeds, so Intel's architecture for many uses is still superior.
We all know that from a gaming standpoint, without being retarded, its much faster...crazy its still faster while being retarded.
The 9900K puts a whooping on the 3700X before its overclocked, and the 8700K can easily beat a 9900K when overclocked. When I said the 3700K would only be able to match a STOCK, old $200 7700K in games, I didn't think I would be right on the money.

Why so many lies? Are you an Intel employee? The charts themselves speak for that the IPC of the new Ryzen is significantly hanging from 9900k. The tone you wrote with the message very clearly shows that you are an Intel freak and even if the charts tell you the obvious, you explain that it is different: D

TechSpot, did you install the latest chipset drivers released a few days ago?

 

[MattZN]

Very interesting. Though, this would be far more useful if you also gave us the wattages burned during these tests.

-Matt

 

[amstech]

The charts themselves speak for that the IPC of the new Ryzen is significantly hanging from 9900k.

They are about even from looking at this review, when you retard the Intel's clockspeed, or match them to Ryzen's. AMD's IPC tech has caught up, matched or edged Intel's based on the results shown here, I am not afraid to admit it, good for AMD its a strong showing.
The architecture is still limited to around 4.0GHz, maybe a few hundred MHZ more, which was attainable 10 years ago by Intel chips.

The tone you wrote with the message very clearly shows that you are an Intel freak and even if the charts tell you the obvious

The charts show that at the same clock speeds, or when you retard the Intel chips the performance is very close. They also show the Intel chips creeping ahead in games still.
We all know at stock clocks or when overclocked, the Intel chips are much faster.
For the clockspeed though, Ryzens performance is impressive.
But they don't go anywhere near 5.0-5.3GHz, and this is still a major disadvantage.

So yeah, I think AMD is well aware of the trade-offs they made with their architecture and really, gaming performance is so good nowadays that one should choose 9900K only to brag that they get 260FPS in one game compared to 240FPS with Ryzen. I can't see this as a cons for not choosing Ryzen...

If gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, you will need everything you can get.
From a gaming perspective, the difference is still noticeable - significant.
Here are a few examples from the 3700X review, posting min/max frames, all CPU's obviously at stock clocks.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Ryzen has closed the gap, and they are no doubt a very capable and good performing CPU for PC gaming enthusiasts. But if your running an 8700K @ 5.2GHz, when it comes to gaming, your leaving Ryzen in the dust. Can you see that con? Lol.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Why are so many people missing the point of doing these tests? They were done to determine how the architectural differences affect different workloads. And now we know what to expect in the future:

• AMD current tech will never catch Intel in games if you're using a high-end (~$500+) graphics card
• Intel will not catch AMD in multicore productivity apps until they get a consumer 10 core chip (which may not be a ring bus chip)

In 2 years this may change but I assume AMD stays with it's current tech and thus latency will continue to be an issues, so no change in high-end gaming. Maybe Intel will split their architectures for consumer-level CPUs. Stay with 8 to 10-core ring bus chips for gaming and good productivity, and then use mesh for 12-16 core to keep up with AMD but use them on consumer-class mobos for great productivity and slightly lower performance gaming.

 

[Shadowboxer]

I’m one of those “boys” who builds home desktop towers exclusively for gaming and I earn enough to afford expensive hardware. Ironically I earn that money on a Xeon workstation PC and spend far more time using that then I do at home playing games on my tower. So I would benefit more from a workstation upgrade than I would from a gaming rig upgrade, especially as I game at 4K and the CPU is barely ever the limiting factor (although sometimes it is, GTAV is CPU bottlenecked at 4K for example).

However which one would I spend my own money on? The 9900K. It’s an inferior chip in most respects and for my uses I’d technically get more from Ryzen. It’s just I am only really enthusiastic about a chips gaming performance. If my boss were to buy me a 3900X system or even a Threadripper system I’d appreciate it a lot. But I wouldn’t spend my own money on a work system and I don’t care about it’s performance anywhere near as much.

Still, there isn’t much in it. If I were poorer I’d get very excited about the R5 3600, which for $200 is absolutely outstanding.

 

[Cplus]

"'This puts to bed the idea that Ryzen would be faster at the same clocks.
It's performance is not any better, and actually is still a little slower at the same clock speeds, so Intel's architecture for many uses is still superior.''

Pls carefully look at the non gaming ipc benchmarks again before making wrong conclusions

 

[zzr1979]

Why are so many people missing the point of doing these tests? They were done to determine how the architectural differences affect different workloads. And now we know what to expect in the future:

• AMD current tech will never catch Intel in games if you're using a high-end (~$500+) graphics card
• Intel will not catch AMD in multicore productivity apps until they get a consumer 10 core chip (which may not be a ring bus chip)

In 2 years this may change but I assume AMD stays with it's current tech and thus latency will continue to be an issues, so no change in high-end gaming. Maybe Intel will split their architectures for consumer-level CPUs. Stay with 8 to 10-core ring bus chips for gaming and good productivity, and then use mesh for 12-16 core to keep up with AMD but use them on consumer-class mobos for great productivity and slightly lower performance gaming.

At what cost ? That kind production will only make higher cost I guest

 

[amstech]

"'This puts to bed the idea that Ryzen would be faster at the same clocks.
It's performance is not any better, and actually is still a little slower at the same clock speeds, so Intel's architecture for many uses is still superior.''

Pls carefully look at the non gaming ipc benchmarks again before making wrong conclusions

I'll repost my comment from a few comments ago:
"They are about even from looking at this review, when you retard the Intel's clockspeed, or match them to Ryzen's. AMD's IPC tech has caught up, matched or edged Intel's based on the results shown here, I am not afraid to admit it, good for AMD its a strong showing.
The architecture is still limited to around 4.0GHz, maybe a few hundred MHZ more, which was attainable 10 years ago by Intel chips."
I am impressed by Ryzen.
The only point I've made is that, when it comes to gaming performance, there is still a significant difference and advantage to Intel. When you overclock, this advantage grows. That doesn't mean that Ryzen is supbar, it games quite well, as shown.

 

[Tristann]

Maybe in gaming there are a few fps differences, but Techspot is not a portal for gamers, but for computer enthusiasts who want to have as much computing power (mathematical) as possible at their fingertips. And the new Ryzen perform a lot more calculations per second from 9900K. In other words, Ryzen has a lot more FLOPS considering the entire processor. And this fascinates enthusiasts, not a few fps difference in games, coming only from a little less delay between the memory controller and RAM.

Ok some examples without lowering clocks, with AGESA 1.0.0.2 and old drivers for chipset on Ryzen>

Movie encoding (X264)
9900K 4.7-5Ghz 135 vs 118 (Ryzen 7 3700X 3.6-4.4)

Handbrake H265 (less is better)
380 vs 327

Adobe Premiere PRO 2019 (lees is better)
116 vs 108

DaVinci Resolve (less is better)
95 vs 87 (less is better)

Stockfish 10
23703 vs 24662 (more is better)

simulation y-crusher
58 vs 49 (less is better)

OpenFOAM / XiFoam
580 vs 420 (less is better)

Javascript
46208 vs 52725 (more is better)

Here you get results without any degradation in performance of 9900k / without power choke 9900k. And you see who has more computing power. And since Ryzen 9 3900X is a direct market competitor of 9900K (since intel has a much higher clock, a direct competitor may have a higher other parameter, and at a lower price - a larger number of cores), 33% can be added to the above Ryzen results. And who is the KING OF POWER?

 

[imdarkbreeze]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

This test is pointless, its like handing capping a corvette to 4 cylinders and testing against a honda civic.

Actually, it's not. It's more like taking a Corvette and Mustang, both with different displacement V8 engines, and running them against each other in the quarter mile at their native off the assembly line performance levels. The test that was DONE, capping the CPUs at 4Ghz when that is not the native speed (Although I realize this was done specifically to look at core for core, clock for clock IPC comparisons) is more like what you are talking about.

Also, it's "handicapping", not "handing capping".

Also, another thing I think all review sites are failing to mention is the fact that when CL/CL refresh came out, they didn't really fare all that well against their own previous generation. Refinements to game code, Windows and BIOS were necessary to pull away from those older parts in any meaningful fashion. The fact that we are running softwares that have not seen any Zen2 optimizations included likely means that going forward we can expect to see some increases in gaming performance since it is currently skewed in Intel's favor due to having only been optimized for those processors. Yes, leaning towards one camp or the other (For both CPUs and graphics cards) when they design games is also a thing, so that probably needs some resolution as well.

 

[imdarkbreeze]

I like the comparison, it shows that if you retard Intel's chips, you will be down to Ryzen performance levels. It also shows that the IPC difference, while a huge upgrade for AMD, is still inferior to Intel's in many tests/categories.
The AIDA64 cache and latency tests are quite interesting, amazing the 9900K is still taking the cake here while being held back.

The 9900K also takes the first place in Far Cry New Dawn, beating the 3900X by a 5% margin for the average frame rate, and 10% for the 1% low result. This is while running at a frequency lower than out of the box.

This puts to bed the idea that Ryzen would be faster at the same clocks.
It's performance is not any better, and actually is still a little slower at the same clock speeds, so Intel's architecture for many uses is still superior.
We all know that from a gaming standpoint, without being retarded, its much faster...crazy its still faster while being retarded.
The 9900K puts a whooping on the 3700X before its overclocked, and the 8700K can easily beat a 9900K when overclocked. When I said the 3700K would only be able to match a STOCK, old $200 7700K in games, I didn't think I would be right on the money.

And I don't like it. It should have been done with 3600mhz memory modules since we already know, for a fact, without any room for discussion, that memory speed directly affects all flavors of Ryzen while it has little impact on Intel once you exceed somewhere around 2666mhz.

 

[jonny888]

Maybe in gaming there are a few fps differences, but Techspot is not a portal for gamers, but for computer enthusiasts who want to have as much computing power (mathematical) as possible at their fingertips.

Pardon? A large amount of Techspot articles are game related, and a large amount of PC hardware enthusiasts are gamers. That the AMD chips represent a clear strength in productivity applications is great. But just because you personally don't care about game performance, doesn't mean you can write it off and dismiss it for everyone else. It does matter. And I hope AMD don't try to pigeon hole themselves too much into productivity workloads down the road, as this kind of CPU competition is amazing for (us) consumers.

 

[amstech]

Maybe in gaming there are a few fps differences,

That's one way to put it.
And 15-20 FPS is more then a few, and that's comparing to STOCK intel chips.

but for computer enthusiasts who want to have as much computing power (mathematical) as possible at their fingertips.

All of my comments focus on GAMING ONLY.
Very few PC enthusiasts care about productivity benchmarks.
Very few. I'd say atleast 70% build their rig to game although its probably more.

I had to go back to the 3700X review to refresh my memory on the productivity benchmarks, because I honestly don't give a damn about exporting video file speed, file zipping and other useless nonsense like WinRAR. God if I ever use that in an argument to say a chip is better, please shoot me.
Any 6/12 chip+ these days has decent - very good multi-functional processing and computational power. Who cares about saving a few seconds here and there when zipping a file or converting a video....Cmon.
The 3700K is a beast, but for gaming, it has trouble besting the STOCK CLOCKED 7700K.

If your buying a CPU for productivity, Ryzen is balling out right now.
If your building a gaming rig and also need to save money, Ryzen is a very good option.
If you have a 120/144/165HZ 1440p monitor like me, can afford it and you need every bit of gaming performance to maximize your gaming experience, Intel is still the way to go.

And I don't like it. It should have been done with 3600mhz memory modules since we already know, for a fact, without any room for discussion, that memory speed directly affects all flavors of Ryzen while it has little impact on Intel once you exceed somewhere around 2666mhz.

I'm not too crazy about in the regard that, Intel's architecture is made to run at high clock speeds, so when you bring that back down, just because your comparing the chips at the same clock speed does not mean its an apples to apples comparison.

 

[yeeeeman]

They are about even from looking at this review, when you retard the Intel's clockspeed, or match them to Ryzen's. AMD's IPC tech has caught up, matched or edged Intel's based on the results shown here, I am not afraid to admit it, good for AMD its a strong showing.
The architecture is still limited to around 4.0GHz, maybe a few hundred MHZ more, which was attainable 10 years ago by Intel chips.


The charts show that at the same clock speeds, or when you retard the Intel chips the performance is very close. They also show the Intel chips creeping ahead in games still.
We all know at stock clocks or when overclocked, the Intel chips are much faster.
For the clockspeed though, Ryzens performance is impressive.
But they don't go anywhere near 5.0-5.3GHz, and this is still a major disadvantage.


If gaming on a high refresh rate monitor, you will need everything you can get.
From a gaming perspective, the difference is still noticeable - significant.
Here are a few examples from the 3700X review, posting min/max frames, all CPU's obviously at stock clocks.

Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Ryzen has closed the gap, and they are no doubt a very capable and good performing CPU for PC gaming enthusiasts. But if your running an 8700K @ 5.2GHz, when it comes to gaming, your leaving Ryzen in the dust. Can you see that con? Lol.

Can't see any con still. Don't tell me that you will be able to discerne 168FPS compared to 155FPS during battlefield 5, cause otherwise you are lying to yourself. Sure, in your head there will be that difference, but in the real world it's just too small to count. And lets not forget that the majority of users are not the 240Hz paranoid gamer type. They just want a smooth experience and what is above 60 FPS is good enough for everything, except maybe counter strike tournaments where every milisecond counts and there still, the difference of 5-10% won't be perceivable.
Sure, you will say that a 9900K at 5.something ghz will do 180-190FPS. Again, realistically you can't see that difference. It might give a subtle edge if you play very fast paced games and you are a proffesional, but 99% of the people buying CPUs are not. So, lets not make a rule out of an exception. What you will feel is that one minute difference in encoding time, that is better with Ryzen.

 

[Markoni35]

This test clearly shows that certain games are rigged to perform worse on AMD chips. The only honestly made game here seems to be World of Tanks. The rest of the AAA games seem to be in bed with Intel.

Because there is no other explanation how can a chip running at the same clock, with a higher IPC, and same instruction set, be faster in all standard tests, but slower in selected games. There's no overclock, there's no cores running faster, everything is the same and only IPC counts.

That means the game is corrupt. It detects the AMD CPU and deliberately slows down. Nasty, very nasty. Foul play, Intel. The question is, how low can Intel go? Instead of spending money on improving their chips, especially security, they've spend all the money on bribing game producers. One more reason not to buy hardware from those cheaters.

Not to mention that Intel chips have more security holes than Swiss cheese. I guess they spent entire budget on bribing game producers. There was no money left for fixing the bugs. Wait... is it possible that Intel experts designed firmware for Boeing 737 MAX??

 

[GreenNova343]

Can anyone on this planet Earth test new 3900X / 3700X @4.3GHz or any max achievable vs 8700K / 9900K @4.9-5GHz (I.e. what people realistically use)? Because I've never seen any single person using 8700K / 9900K @4GHz.

They already did that last week (linked in the very first phrase of the very first sentence of this article).

The reason they needed to do this article, however, is because people consistently misinterpret IPC when trying to compare AMD & Intel CPUs anymore. The original (& standard) reviews for new CPUs, to use the car analogy, are testing to see whether a brand-new Ford Mustang (4-cylinder, V6 & both V8 models), Chevrolet Camaro (V6 & V8 models), Chevrolet Corvette (turbocharged & non-turbocharged models), Dodge Challenger (V6 & V8 models), & Dodge Charger (V6 & V8 models) is not only the absolute fastest car but also the fastest to go from 0-60MPH. This review, on the other hand, says, "OK, we're going to put a horsepower limiter on each of these cars so that they have the same maximum horsepower, & see which one has the best performance across a fairly even playing field" -- & note, while I'm not a huge gearhead, even I know there's a significant difference in max horsepower on those different engine options for those cars.

Since apparently people have trouble reading & interpreting the charts as well, here's a normalized (Normalized results means the i9-9900K's performance = 100%, written as 100.00, looking at the 1% Low/Average FPS for all CPUs, all at 1080p resolution):

Battlefield V
-- 1700X: 83.04/84.375
-- 2700X: 83.93/86.25 [1%/2% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3700X: 91.96/93.125 [10%/8% improvement over 2700X, 11%/10% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3900X: 91.96/97.5 [10%/13% improvement over 2700X, 11%/16% improvement over 1700X]
-- 9900K: 100/100

Far Cry New Dawn
-- 1700X: 77.17/75.42
-- 2700X: 80.43/78.81 [4%/4% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3700X: 91.30/91.53 [13%/16% improvement over 2700X, 18%/21% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3900X: 91.30/94.92 [13%/20% improvement over 2700X, 18%/25% improvement over 1700X]
-- 9900K: 100/100

Total War: Three Kingdoms
-- 1700X: 88.07/94.53
-- 2700X: 89.91/95.31 [2%/1% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3700X: 94.50/96.09 [5%/1% improvement over 2700X, 7%/2% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3900X: 97.25/97.66 [8%/3% improvement over 2700X, 10%/3% improvement over 1700X]
-- 9900K: 100/100

World War Z
-- 1700X: 89.61/84.36
-- 2700X: 91.56/86.73 [2%/3% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3700X: 96.10/94.79 [5%/9% improvement over 2700X, 7%/12% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3900X: 100/98.58 [9%/14% improvement over 2700X, 12%/17% improvement over 1700X]
-- 9900K: 100/100

World of Tanks
-- 1700X: 90.40/86.12
-- 2700X: 92.93/87.90 [3%/2% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3700X: 100.00/96.09 [%/% improvement over 2700X, 11%/12% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3900X: 103.54/99.64 [%/% improvement over 2700X, 14%/16% improvement over 1700X]
-- 9900K: 100/100

Rainbow Six Siege
-- 1700X: 93.26/88.45
-- 2700X: 95.34/90.44 [2%/2% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3700X: 97.41/92.83 [8%/9% improvement over 2700X, 4%/5% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3900X: 98.96/94.82 [11%/13% improvement over 2700X, 6%/7% improvement over 1700X]
-- 9900K: 100/100

And although they didn't include one, here's the overall average
6-game Average
-- 1700X: 88.23/85.90
-- 2700X: 90.33/87.90 [2%/2% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3700X: 96.04/94.26 [6%/7% improvement over 2700X, 9%/10% improvement over 1700X]
-- 3900X: 98.25/97.39 [9%/11% improvement over 2700X, 11%/13% improvement over 1700X]
-- 9900K: 100/100

Yes, you're reading that right: using the 6 games they tested here, 3rd-gen Ryzen made double-digit percentage improvements over the original Ryzen CPUs, to the point that they pull within a few percentage points (roughly 5% or less) of the 9900K's performance, when everyone is operating at the same frequency (3% or less in the case of the 3900X). When was the last time you heard of an AMD chip having that close of an IPC result to an Intel CPU of the same generation? As for overclocking...again, unless it's going to be "everyone is overclocked to the same frequency", that's not what this article is looking at.

The TLR results: 1st-gen Ryzen was 12-15% slower than the i9-9900K, 2nd-gen improved slightly but was still 10-13% slower; 3rd-gen Ryzen, however, has pulled within 5% or less of the i9-9900K's performance. And for 95% of the gamers out there, that's going to be "more than good enough".

 

[amstech]

Can't see any con still. Don't tell me that you will be able to discerne 168FPS compared to 155FPS during battlefield 5, cause otherwise you are lying to yourself. Sure, in your head there will be that difference, but in the real world it's just too small to count. And lets not forget that the majority of users are not the 240Hz paranoid gamer type..

Your exaggerated metaphor is useless here.
Using a 240Hz and 168FPS example does nothing to backup your comment, or combat mine. 15-20FPS difference is major at 1440p, and that's before overlocking.
We are talking about these GPU's struggling to hit over 100FPS in games @ 1440p, so when you have a 1440p 120/144/165hz monitor, this is huge.
Again, Ryzen is not doing bad at all in this comparison, but Intel is better.

This test clearly shows that certain games are rigged to perform worse on AMD chips.

I think it has more to do with how most game engines are coded and what instruction sets they use.