I see you are an Intel fanboy, but when you check 3300X and 9350KF without OC, in the really CPU-bound Far Cry 5, the 3300X is faster. And the 9350KF costs NEARLY $170. LOL, funny guy you are.
And you speak about thermals. Really, we speak of 67C? Is it high or what? You get 90C or near 100C with an OCd 9900K.
Well no not really. It's just difficult to find objective reviews. I was hyped to see the Ryzen 4700/4800 laptop parts, only to find once released that their overall system performance was sub-par. And I am not talking about gaming performance due to lower end GPUs, since gaming is maybe 5% of what I use my laptop for.
To illustrate, I pull up PCMark (regular) for Laptops - which is not heavily affected by GPU - and there is not a single AMD based laptop in the top 100 results. Not one. There are laptops with GTX 1070s, so it's not even all the latest and greatest. From what I can tell, this is the case across the board for pretty much every category including desktops. These review sites are not capturing something.
What I do with my system is intensive, but has little to do with media. Right now, I have two visual studio sessions pulled up, SQL Server running and being accessed by one app, and MacOS running under VMWare Workstation. One of the VS sessions is connected to the MacOS VM which is acting as an XCode server for Xamarin - this allows me to develop in VS C# .Net and the VS IDE and use the iOS API. I can also run iOS apps in a simulator, which leverages the MacOS session. I also have Factory Talk and RSLinx running which allow integration into machine control (industrial automation).
So this type of thing stresses the entire system. It's not just about encoding a video or some sound file. I need a well-balanced system, and I think most users of all types need this.
So my conclusion is simply this: AMD might make a fast CPU, but the surrounding system of chipsets / drivers / IO is sub-par when used together.