Userbenchmark is a tool, and if used incorrectly, useless as a screwdriver to hammer a nail.
Speed doesn't mean a thing on those charts,and is quite misleading. The i3-7100 for instance, has no issues keeping up with an i5 6600k, in 1-2 thread applications. Both at 3.9GHz. And readily stomps the i5 6400 in anything but heavy 4thread production. So which do you choose for the 1 table?
Speed value, big jump in performance? No, sorry, disagree with that basis.
The real difference is in software usage. The i3 is 2cores/4 threads, so if the cpu can squeak 2 threads per core of software, it's the same as a 4 core. If it can't, you've got a dual core trying to do a quad core worth of work, and it's gonna be slow. The i7 is the same as the i5, quad core, but having hyperthreading it allows for the possible use of 2 threads per core. That's upto 4x stronger than the i3, plus the added core clock speeds. In 1-2 thread applications the only bonus is the clock speeds and L-cache, otherwise similar results.
Games are no longer really using 2 or less threads, but instead using 4-8 threads, putting the i3 at a serious disadvantage.
For the money, the Ryzen is better value, but an i7-7700k is no slouch and still relevant. New Starwars game recommends 32Gb of ram, so things are changing, can't say how long a 4c/8t cpu will last compared to a 6c/12t cpu regardless of clock speeds. 20 years ago, it was 350MHz cpus. 10 years ago 3.5GHz cpus, finally last year was 5.0GHz. Speeds are slowing down, threads are going up.
Either way, the day of the dual core cpu is over for gaming, quads are suffering, the hexa core/quad HT will be next.