I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in providing an article the has bias towards workstation loads as evidenced by threadrippers position near the top, and the fact that you're completely ignoring overclocking.
However, in my attempts to prove that you are a fool, I discovered that indeed things are not as cut and dry as I had assumed, and in some cases AMD provides better price to performance value over Intel, although they seem unable to dethrone Intel from the top of CPU performance as of right now. Let me share with you what I have found.
Unfortunately I don't have much time to compile more as I have a bunch of stuff I am working on at the moment but rest assured I have seen the error of my ways. Its looking more like the question of Intel vs AMD is very complicated and making general statements is not the right course of action.
AMD is right up there with intel in price per performance for lower end CPU's (like the one I use) but simply has no answer for higher end CPU's, and the 9600k stands out as exceptional price to performance beating out even the 3900x at around half the price. AMD also has no real answer to the 9700k/9900k at the high end as well.
I stand corrected, again. I will edit my posts to reflect this.
Hell I just put one of the i5 9400F systems together with an RTX 2060 and its a perfectly fine rig... I built it on an MSI 360 itx board with 16 gigs of ram and it can handle most anything you want to do.. Don't waste a lot of extra cash on 9th gen i7 its largely going to be wasted overkill