Umm... wait. There are commenters who cite getting GeekBench 5 numbers or AMD chipz higher than 1800. A little overclocking on stock. And the Intel partz are what, hitting 1800s too? Yawn!
Seriously: if you're one of those people endowed with enough money to purchase top-flight memory, top-shelf motherboards, nearly-impossible-to-find AMD 5900×yz processors and a 29 inch superwide monitor, its not like you're going to stuff a $99 Walmart special GRFX card in there, you know?
Myself, I tend toward a blend that is balanced. ± $200 on the MoBo, same on the power supplies, enclosure, fans, $400 to 600 on a CPU, the same on a graphics card, and the same on memory SIMMs, and the combo of NVMe and spinning disk tech. That homes at $2,000 for the operating-system-less box build.
Today, you'd easily have a world-class game-winning system sporting 12 cores, 32 GB of memory, terabytes of SSD, hard disk; you'd get wicked fast GPU performance, plenty of power supply reserve capacity, a quiet box with powerful fans. Whilst gaming, the rig would definitely be a room heater, but so whas? It'd scream.
So, while Intel is aiming to capture the crown again, market pressure and competitive dynamics mean ... a great big yawn. So what, Intel? Its not like your Model 11 chip is hitting the 2500 to 3000 band, is it... Not at all. Yet, again, for the price, if it really will be competitive with AMD's top-shelf offerings, then hey... I'd happy use Intel as well. But not "more money for the same performance". My money MUST go into real, not imagined, performance.
GoatGuy