I'm not about the read the whole 8 pages, I admit, which seems to have flirted with a general Intel vs AMD at times, so I'll just answer the question in the title.
If I were choosing one for gaming, it would be the Ryzen 7 7800X3D no question. The main reason is because it is cheaper, so it has a better value by virtue of being similar performance for less. Consuming less power is a plus, but not a major factor on its own.
The reason I would go with this is because I don't tend to need the massive amount of cores the Core i9 (or even Core i7) offer, but I want at least 8 performance cores, and I tend to play CPU heavy games a lot (read as, Minecraft Java edition). Going from the Ryzen 7 3700X to the Ryzen 7 5800X3D brought a pretty substantial performance uplift in this game, and while I don't have a 5700X or 5800X to compare to, I can't imagine the increase I saw came entirely from the Zen 2 to Zen 3 generation uplift. It was so big that while I was troubleshooting a PC issue and put my older Ryzen 7 3700X back in, I could no longer move around pre-generated (lighter to load) chunks at a render distance of 32 and hold 60 FPS like the Ryzen 7 5800X3D could (it can even do this at up to 48 chunks, but there are some increased momentary stutters). I'm waiting for the Zen 5 X3D chip and will likely move to that, and I'm seriously excited to see how Intel's "throw extra cache at things" approach works out.
Unfortunately, finding exact hardware becnchmarking with Minecraft Java is... difficult at best due to how uncommon it is, probably due to the random and variable nature of the game.
In my eyes, the situation between Intel and AMD resemble the things they did a lot back in the early 2000s during the Athlon XP/64 versus Pentium 4 days, just not as bad for Intel now as it was back then.
This is how things were back then.
AMD often had cheaper products, with lower clock speeds, but higher IPC, and lower power consumption.
Intel would cost more, rum warmer, and had less performance in games, but better productivity performance.
That's more or less true today, with the exception that Intel is still rather competitive on gaming performance today. The biggest difference was that AMD had higher IPC and lower clock speed then, but had a slight advantage in the end, whereas now the first two are still true but they have a slight deficit. They're making up for it (and then some) with the X3D models. Intel would have the overall edge if you remove the X3D CPUs from the picture... but those exist, so it seems silly to say that.
Both seem viable to me, and this is certainly better than the mid 2010s. The CPU market is alright to me. Now if only the GPU market were like this! That's the one I could complain endlessly about.
Like DIR! and many other videos. Its not rocket science!
