Doesn't sound like you read my comment.
The VERY FIRST thing I said was "whether or not its noticeable".
So I guess I have to repeat myself? Ok....
Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
Thats a beatdown.
It depends on what it's being compared to.
Example 1: in testing, with the same amount of RAM & the same GPU/resolution settings, CPU 1 gets 30 FPS while CPU 2 gets 45 FPS. Not only is there a +15 FPS margin between their performance, but CPU 2 provides +50% more performance over CPU 1.
Example 2: as above, but while CPU 2 had 45 FPS, CPU 3 had 60 FPS. Again, the margin between the 2 CPUs is still +15 FPS, but CPU 3 is now only providing +33% performance over CPU 2...still impressive, but not as impressive as the difference between CPU 1 & CPU 2.
Example 3: same situation, only this time we're comparing CPU 9 & CPU 10. CPU 9 provided 300 FPS...by itself a very impressive feat, as the performance will max out
any gaming monitor on the market. CPU 10 managed to outdo it with 315 FPS...but while it has the same +15FPS margin over its competition as the prior 2 examples, it's only a
+5% improvement over CPU 9's performance. That's a fairly small margin -- so small, in fact, that in some cases that could be attributed to the margin of error in the testing itself.
The results they're showing in this article? They're analogous to Example 3, not Examples 1 or 2. Which is why the article's conclusion was "Yes, the 10600K is faster, but you probably won't notice the difference in gaming, & we still think the 3700X is better for
all-around performance".