Vals89

650W is plenty for that combo. the 3600 stock draws around 85W on the package. The 3070 is 220W stock. Unless you are running 10 fans with a pump and some christmas lights decoration, the PSU should be plenty. 
I'm running 3600 overclocked with an overclocked 2070 Super (power draw is around 250W) on a 650W PSU with no issues, not even a whoosh from the PSU.
Can people chill with the overexaggerated PSU recommendations...

With mobile CPUs it's not as simple as comparing R5 vs R7. Depending on the laptop manufacturer and the model, laptops with the same CPU could perform differently. So instead of looking at random 4500u and 4700u benchmarks, look at reviews of specific laptop models with those CPUs. 
Things that impact the actual performance are - cooling system, power target (some laptops are locked at 15W for the CPU package, others have performance mode which goes to 25W), Memory channels (cheap laptops come with soldered 4/8GB RAM working in single channel).
 
Which 2 laptops are you looking at?

To quote Apple

Got it, will try to play around the undervolt with stable clocks or auto clocks.

I did try Clock tuner by 1usmus, ironically, it worked in first go (before remounting/repasting pump block) and suggested 4350mhz for ccx1 and ccx2 and 4275mhz for ccx3 and ccx4 after running all tests without BSOD or machine restarting.

After I remounted and repasted the pump block, I tried running it again, and my machine now restarts as soon as test#3 is started which tries to apply 4375mhz to ccx1 and ccx2, with 4300mhz to ccx3 and ccx4 with 1250mv. No settings in bios was changed after remounting/repasting, so I was kind of puzzled why it failed after running successfully for first time before I touched the pump. Retried multiple time, but machine get hard restarted every time on same test, so I kind of give up and applied manual settings "undervolted cpu to 1.25 volts and overclocked cpu to 4275Mhz clocks", as I know these should at least be stable numbers.

The jump to 70 degrees is normal, as long as it doesn't go straight into the 90's, it's fine. Package power is 121W and your ambient temp is quite high, so nothing out of place with the results you are getting.
You could try undervolting a bit more at this clock speed (if stable) or instead of setting a fixed clock speed, just leave it on auto with a fixed voltage or a voltage offset. Just play around with different configurations and stick with the one that suits you. 
Did you achieve this undervolt with the Clock tuner for Ryzen by 1usmus?

As the previous guys have pointed out, when you are talking about "3rd gen" you mean Zen3 which is Ryzen 5000, right? If that's the case, have you seen the presentation, the slides, the benchmarks? If so, do you like what you see and are you willing to wait for it? If yes, just wait, if no, buy the current gen, because actual benchmarks of the new gen are most likely not gonna be better than the ones presented by AMD. No company underhypes their products!

It is really good. It kinda emphasizes undervolting, so it is just what you need. Install it, make the necessary preparations - LLC level, BIOS version etc, run diagnostic and then run OC and it will do it for you. Actually I ran it without the latest BIOS version and it was fine. I guess it has an impact on stability, but I didn't want to update, because there is negative feedback for my board on the newest BIOS.

Looks fine, my set-up is the same and there are no issues
 

Yes, in hwinfo, look at CPU TDC, that's the current.

An overclock will keep the CPU running at a constant frequency and voltage, however with no load there is no current going through the CPU, which means the power will be low. Wattage=V*A. When you have high voltage but low amps, the power is low. So it will be cool while idle

I know it's fine, but combined with high ambient temp and high-TDP cpu it might overwhelm a cooler. I was surprised as well when my 3600 hit 70C on default settings... now It's overclocked and it never goes past 65... Overclocked and undervolted compared to stock voltage.

Oh....I just saw it. You issue is that on default settings your CPU is going with too high voltage. In the first screenshot where you had 71 degrees, the CPU was at 4GHZ with an actual voltage SVI2 TFN (different from VID) of 1.150v. While in the second screenshot the CPU was running again at the same 4GHZ, but with an actual voltage SVI2 TFN of 1.28v under load. Which means that the CPU is capable of running at 4ghz on 1.15V, but the default settings of the board boost the voltage needlessly to 1.28 under load. 
The solution is easy, go in the BIOS or ryzen master, set the voltage to 1.2V VID (actual voltage will drop under load) and clock speed to 4GHZ and test with a load. If unstable you can raise the voltage, if stable you can raise the clockspeed and voltage until desired temperature is reached while stable.

This looks good and perfectly in line with the capabilities of the cooler at this ambient temp.

The pump and fans are hooked up to a single 4 pin header, the readings are not indicative of the pump speed. I've looked into it, cause I was concerned too when I was testing my unit. The header reads the fan speeds for whatever reason, so best way to check if the pump is working or not is to unhook the fans from the splitter and plug the pump alone (with the VRM fan attached to it) to the board, while the fans are hooked to separate fan headers. 
You are forgetting that there is a VRM fan on the pump which goes over 2000 rpm, so there are 3 different speed readings consolidated into one.

The pump and fans are hooked up to a single 4 pin header, the readings are not indicative of the pump speed. I've looked into it, cause I was concerned too when I was testing my unit. The header reads the fan speeds for whatever reason, so best way to check if the pump is working or not is to unhook the fans from the splitter and plug the pump alone (with the VRM fan attached to it) to the board, while the fans are hooked to separate fan headers. 
You are forgetting that there is a VRM fan on the pump which goes over 2000 rpm, so there are 3 different speed readings consolidated into one.

Ryzen 5000 will be supported on x570 and b550 boards with BIOS version AGESA 1.0.8.0 and up. 1.0.8.0 is already available for a lot of boards, and it will allow the boards to POST with Ryzen 5000. On November 5 a fully functional BIOS will be released for the Ryzen 5000. 
So no need to return the board. If you want to upgrade to 5000 series, just update the BIOS (if 1.0.8.0 version is available for yours), so it's 5000 series ready and slide in the new CPU when you get it

Ryzen 5000 will be supported on x570 and b550 boards with BIOS version AGESA 1.0.8.0 and up. 1.0.8.0 is already available for a lot of boards, and it will allow the boards to POST with Ryzen 5000. On November 5 a fully functional BIOS will be released for the Ryzen 5000. 
So no need to return the board. If you want to upgrade to 5000 series, just update the BIOS (if 1.0.8.0 version is available for yours), so it's 5000 series ready and slide in the new CPU when you get it

26% average FPS improvement in gaming compared to Zen 2 is not a little bit. Whether that's worth it to you is a different story. To me personally the performance increase compared to my 3600 doesn't matter, since I don't utilize my CPU completely and I am not a hardcore gamer, chasing every last bit of FPS. 

We have to take into consideration the fact that the intel K parts need a z490 boards to perform optimally and be overclocked, while the Ryzen 5000 parts can be used with cheaper b550 boards, especially if they are at the same TDP as Ryzen 3000. So another 30-40 dollars savings from a b550 board and you basically pay the same amount as you would for an intel chip, but get much better multithreaded performance and comparable or even better gaming performance.
I see all of this as a win and I can't blame AMD for hiking up the price a bit. Still hoping for  non-X parts though...

I am really curious what system your aunt got for 150 USD. Where I live, a new GT 1030 costs 85 dollars. 

Thanks again. But that's the thing about the front rad, my case cant support mounting the tubes at the bottom of the rad.

do note that the voltage in CTR is VID, the actual voltage under heavy load is lower than that, even at high LLC. My voltage drops to 1.290-1.300v under load at 1.325 VID. 
Look at core voltage (SVI2 TFN) readings for the actual voltage while under load. 
There is a lot of discussion on what voltage is safe for Zen 2, but the method in the thread below looks the safest. 
 

Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 or 360 is a good AIO and it's way cheaper than Corsairs or NZXTs. Gamer's Nexus has a review of both versions on a 3950X OC and it performs way better than any air cooler or 240/280 or even 360 AIO

Tried it on my r5 3600 and on the first run with the recommended voltage of 1.275, it settled with CCX1@4225mhz, CCX2@4200mhz. Compared to my manual OC of 4.3Ghz @ 1.325 (SET) or the default CPU settings, it looks like a straight undervolt. I did another run with CTR, but this time I set the voltage to 1.325 and it got me the same OC results as my manual OC. The tool achieved the same OC results as I did manually, but it took only 15 mins instead of a day of testing.

do note that the voltage in CTR is VID, the actual voltage under heavy load is lower than that, even at high LLC. My voltage drops to 1.290-1.300v under load at 1.325 VID. 
Look at core voltage (SVI2 TFN) readings for the actual voltage while under load. 
There is a lot of discussion on what voltage is safe for Zen 2, but the method in the thread below looks the safest.