You are kidding me right? If you don't buy a GPU that cost 700$ and more, there is no performance gain over the choice of CPU or almost between a 2000 Ryzen or a Core CPU.
Within a budget, AMD will always win over Intel. A 2700x with a 1080 TI will fare better than a 9900k and a 1070 GTX... just saying... and your performance over the 1070 GTX with a 2700x or a 9900k are the same. The only difference is what is left in your pocket. How can you beat a 2600x offering for the price? Especially with the shortages, as of now buying Intel is insane.
However when it comes to multi-threaded performances Ryzen is cheaper and better in comparison to Intel midrange offering.
Unless you are an enthusiasm, CPU bottleneck benchmarks are useless and they are only going to fool mainstream users into thinking buying Intel makes a difference while in reality it doesn't. Anything below a Vega 56 doesn't matter. Joe blow buying a 1060 GTX or an RX 580 will not see a damn difference with their gaming performances because they are in a GPU bottleneck situation.
Stop drinking the coolaid and check the numbers.
Surely you must be the one that is kidding, or those red coloured glasses are really clouding your judgement.
I already said it before in this thread, that Ryzen are great at productivity but not so good at gaming. The 2600X and 2700X are perfect examples of this. They would both dominate the 8600K in most highly threaded productivity apps, yet the 8600K crushes them in BF:V, a game that is supposed to be highly multi-threaded.
You are right that AMD is generally the better value in a productivity rig, but if I wanted a highly capable MT machine the recent $400 TR 1950X deals (16 cores!) actually makes more sense than a $330 2700X.
For gaming however, a 8600K at $240 outperforms the 2700X at $330 by a clear 15%. Meanwhile, the $240 2600X is a whopping 25% slower than the 8600K. Admittedly the 14nm shortages means the value proposition of certain chips like the i5 8400 isn't as great as it was before, which is a real shame. At the old price of $180 it would have been a great deal, considering it performs like a 2700X in games. However at $220 it's so close to the 8600K you may as well get that instead, and also have to ability to overclock to 5GHz.
Oh and before you re-use the age old argument of a slower CPU hiding behind a GPU bottleneck to be 'equal' - lets consider for a moment that people who own lower end GPUs (like myself, I have a Fury X) don't necessarily run at ultra settings, which would of course be very GPU bound. In fact I run at a mix of medium and high to keep above 100fps at all times. If I was running at ultra I would be getting dips down into the 50s on my GPU.
Therefore at 1080P ultra settings I am indeed GPU bottlenecked, but I'm also getting framerates that are too low for my liking. However by reducing the GPU load I am now able to maintain above 100fps, and this is where a faster CPU comes into play.
If you look at the charts, the 2600X dips as low as 75fps, and the 2700X 85fps, whereas all the CFL chips from the 8600K and up can maintain 100fps+ at all times. This is the true value of a faster gaming CPU, in the 1% lows, when the action gets hectic and you can still maintain a healthy frame rate.
Now I'm not saying the game is unplayable on Ryzen setups, of course not. 75 - 85fps mins are still very playable, and I can speak from experience on this coming from my 3770K. However, it isn't quite the smooth 100fps+ experience you get on the higher end Intel chips. Having upgraded from the 3770K mainly because of BF1, I can appreciate what a faster CPU brings to the table, even with a mid range GPU by today's standards.