The real competitor for the 3300X is the i3-10100. AMD's chip can be a bit difficult to find at it's 'real' price (eg, look at this price gouging: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0876YS2T4). Not impossible, but not at Amazon at least. The same is at least partially true of the 10100, but:"You can find the 3300X for around $120, which makes it impossible to recommend the $309 4750G for gaming with a discrete graphics card. "
"Intel still holds its gaming performance crown, albeit by a small margin when compared to the Ryzen 3000 models, in this price bracket.
In terms of average frame rates across the breadth of our test suite, the Core i7-10700F is 18.18% faster than the 4650G. The delta shrinks to 12% after tuning the Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G, but it's still significantly slower than the 10700.
The less-expensive $263 Core i5-10600K is the go-to chip for gamers chasing the highest frame rates possible on a budget"
WHAT?
You state that the $120 3300x is the proper 3000 compare for the dgpu gaming scenario, & then proceed to compare the inferior perf & more expensive APU, to a $263 Intel.
Even this rigged compare isnt much of a win - in fact its a clear win for amd 3300x at $240 less ( w/ a budget for a $240 dearer GPU)..
Core i3-10100 for $120: https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16819118138
Ryzen 3 3300X for $120 ON BACKORDER: https://www.adorama.com/amd101159box.html
Would be very interesting to see a head to head of those two chips.