Userbenchmark doesn't tell the whole story. There's too many variables to go along with the cpu, such as OC, ram, etc that affect outputs by users.
You also end up running into the point of diminishing returns where the difference between #1 and #20 is a few fps that's either beyond the capacity of the monitor to see, or the human eye to differentiate. Most ppl have a very hard time telling the difference between 80 and 100fps, there's very few who can tell the difference between 100 and 120fps and almost nobody can see the difference in 120-150fps. It's a computer generated benchmark.
It's really not worth $1000+ to get an extra 3-5% performance boost that does nothing for the viewer except give bragging rights.
I own a i7-3770k and gtx970 that gets me above 60fps in everything I play on dual 1080p/60Hz monitors. What would any upgrade to faster cpu and better gpu get me. Exactly nothing but a benchmark saying my stuff was faster and an empty wallet.