I’ve seen benchmarks of Intel’s 9th gen CPU’s vs AMD’s Ryzen 3000 CPU’s, and Intel’s CPU’s usually get around 10 more FPS, but I’m not sure if AMD’s CPU’s are fully optimized for these benchmarks. They normally perform better with faster RAM (DDR4-3600 or above is usually best), and precision boost overdrive generally provides better results than manual overclocking. Intel doesn’t need these optimizations as far as I know, you mostly just need to overclock it. I’m technically making an assumption by saying that the Ryzen 3000 CPU’s aren’t fully optimized during CPU benchmarks, but I feel like the gap between the 3700x and the 9700k (for example) aren’t as large as benchmarks show, even if Intel still has a slight upper hand
That all depends on what your budget it. If you compare a $330 Ryzen 3700X to a baseline i7-8700 ($320 ) The AMD would walk all over it in every category.
If you compared a Ryzen 3800X ($399) to an Intel 9700K ($364 + $60/cooler) It would be a more close match if you ran it at STOCK. If you overclock the Intel, the intel would win. But then you have consider you would need a more robust power supply and better cooling as the intel runs hotter. (It's listed as a 95W part, but those numbers are shown to be wildly off when you push it.)
So in the end, if you overclock them, then yes Intel is the fastest. But you pay for that privledge of hitting 5GHz+ all core. And when you use processors like these, you are USUALLY aiming for 4K gaming. At these resolutions, the GPU is a more important consideration as games become GPU limited (NVIDIA 2080/2080ti) A Fast CPU will help, but not as much as a fast GPU.
Now if you game at 1080, then the CPU has to keep up with setting up frames for the GPU. In this case you become more CPU bound. But at these resolutions, unless you want stupid fast frame rates, it really doesn't matter.
It's all about balance.