So I was recently looking at those as options for a very low budget video editing PC for someone, and yes, AMD destroys intel in raw CPU performance for the same price, however in those low-budget applications Intel has an upper hand - integrated GPU. With AMD you either have to go with the super crappy 3400G, which is a really poor CPU(but also very cheap), or for literally anything else + a dedicated GPU(which increases the cost significantly above Intel's offering). I was surprised to find out it's actually cheaper to go with say i5 9400 with an integrated GPU than with Ryzen 5 3600 + cheapest dedicated GPU. Yes the dedicated gpu will be better than intel's offering(marginally so) but if you only care about the CPU performance, don't have a lot of money and yet you need something to drive your monitor, then Intel has that integrated GPU to offer that AMD lacks.

I like Anandtech. They have some really great deep dive articles on CPUs and system architecture. Which is why this type of 'test' is just weird. None of the CPUs they compare seem to be in the same price bracket. Many aren't even from the same generation. 7700K? 8086K? 4900HS? Yes, sometimes you have to work with what you have, but c'mon - at least one somewhat comparable CPU would've been nice for reference (i3 8100 or i5 9400F).

Intel can't match this performance to price ratio

I wanted to update my system with the Ryzen 5 1600 AF, given its value at $85 - but it's no longer in stock anywhere at that price, so the 3300X is looking appealing.

I have a 5 year old Intel i7 CPU. Not to diverge too far from the topic, but would I have any reason to upgrade my CPU for gaming?

I assume swapping my GTX 760 with a latest generation card would give me better gaming performance.

How about single core performance? Many games are pegged to one or two cores only. I've always found the AMD approach of throwing more cores at the problem not to be optimal.