It's my understanding that AMD is still producing 5000 series chips along side the 7000 series chips. Now, from my perspective, I see even midranged chips being able to max out games in an FPS range that is basically meaningless. To me, the jump from 60FPS to 120/144 is instantly apparent. Anything beyond that just seems pointless. We see these benchmarks "this CPU gets 300 FPS, but the other one gets 320". That means absolutely nothing to me. You can put a 144hz monitor next to a 240hz monitor and I can't tell the difference. When I'm gaming I don't start to notice any difference in my experience until I start to drop below 80-90fps.
So lets take what I just said and apply it to this chart. I believe AMD notices that people would rather save $50 by buying a a 5700 over a 13400 and apply that to buying a GPU. AMD continues to sell product, gain market share, be profitable and make happy customers. The 7000 series is there for people need it for productivity purposes with the lower-end CPUs being just "fill".
I don't think Intel is ignorant of this either. The 12000 series are still a solid line of products. While Intel isn't producing the 12000 series anymore, they do have a lot of "new old stock" sitting on retailer shelves
Frankly, you can pair any lowend CPU with a decent GPU and have a fantastic gaming experience these days. We are entering into a recession and I don't see many people buying the 13 series or 7000 series unless they "have to have the newest thing".
And these products are aimed at the budget segment where people are going to be balancing cost very carefully. You should always be aware of your budget but these products are in a very budget conscious market segment. They essentially were all limited by 6650XT which is a very fair pairing for this matchup. To anyone in this budget segment I'd tell them get a 5600 over a 13400 and spend the difference trying to upgrade to a 6700xt. I doubt anyone in this budget segment will be running anything higher than 144hz refresh rate. A 6700xt plus any of these CPUs would easily keep that monitor happy at 1080p. Heck, the 6650xt did a fantastic staying above my 80FPS preference in these benchmarks. I might even tell people pocket the money and spend it on a few cases of mountain dew to drink while celebrating your new gaming PC.
And to wrap that whole post up, I honestly want to meet the person who has a 4090 running next to a ryzen 5600
FWIW - I get your viewpoint. However, not everyone who reads this site has a primary interest in gaming, or only games with their computers. We do other things.
And, like @takaozo
said, AM4 is, for all intents and purposes, a dead platform. From that standpoint, it does not matter that AMD is still producing AM4 parts. I imagine that the fact that they are still producing AM4 parts was unplanned and/or, in part, due to their "unexpectedly low AM5 sales." If AM5 were selling better, I bet AM4 production would be minimal, if any, at this point.
And also, not all of us want to save $50 on a part that we can put towards a GPU when the entire platform will be outdated in a few years necessitating an outlay of much more than $50 to upgrade that system for whatever the reason might be.
I built my wife an AM4 system starting out with a 3800X. She's not a gamer. She mostly uses it for very large xcel spreadsheets. You could argue that the system is over-powered for what she does, but she love's its speed. It cold-boots Windows 10 in 4-second - not using "fast boot." Her previous system was Phenom II X6 based. Shortly after the 5800X came out, I upgraded her system to that, and she's even more happy with it. However, there is literally no upgrade path for that system at this point - except maybe to a higher core count CPU.
As I said above, I will not buy into AM4 for other system builds I have planned in the near future. I probably would not go with Intel at this point due to a history of lack of upgrade possibilities. My last "power" system was Sandy Bridge X proc based, that I was then able to put in an Ivy Bridge X Xeon, and it was more than capable enough for what I wanted, however, the Ivy Bridge part was as far as I was able to go with that build.
So, for someone like me, and other TS members - I suspect, the more interesting review would have been the article's Intel proc against AM5 parts.
In some respects, I am a value based buyer, not a money is no object buyer, however, I will not buy into what is an essentially dead platform to save $XX on a platform that I may have to toss away in a few years and spend far more than I saved on the outdated platform.
Perhaps another approach might have been to mix in the AM5 parts into the review. But then again, I am aware that I represent a minority of the TS readership.