Why are you comparing against a year old chip ? Why not the 3700x or 3800x ? The 2700x is old news and not near as good as the 3700x.
He said the performance delta in those areas between a Ryzen 5 3600 and a Core i9 9900KF was between 50% to 60% - the problem is even with a Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 2700X with a Core i5 9600K,Core i7 8700K or a Core i9 9900K the delta is nowhere as big. Since Fallout 4 uses 4 threads intensively,and slightly uses another two threads,and all the Intel CPUs use the same core design,with any Intel CPU of recent years,the performance difference is largely down to clockspeed and RAM speed.
Also due to the age of the game,no one really tests Fallout 4 which is kind of annoying for me as I have 2000+ hours in the game,and why I was asking for Ryzen 3000 owners to please test stuff.
Plus his results don't seem to tally with the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X results and his own test results. The Ryzen 5 3600 boosts upto 4.2GHZ,so at worst with the same RAM will be 10% slower than say a Ryzen 7 3800X or Ryzen 9 3900X. Looking at the results posted here:
1.)A tweaked Ryzen 9 3900X and a Ryzen 7 3700X at 4.25GHZ produce 66~68FPS in the Corvega test. Their Core i9 9900KF at stock is 74FPS. So between 9% to 12% better and its mostly down to the clockspeed IMHO,which another poster stated when they compared the Ryzen 7 3700X to a 4.5GHZ Core i7 6700K.
2.)Ryzen 7 3700X at 4.25GHZ produces 79FPS and the Core i9 9900KF 91FPS which is 15% or around that.
A Ryzen 5 3600 runs at between 4GHZ~4.2GHZ even under a Blender stress test. That is at worst a 5% clock difference between a Ryzen 5 3600 and the Ryzen 7 3700X tested here or nearer to 10% if they boost perfectly. So lets say a 20% delta for the Ryzen 5 3600 - so how is the delta 50% to 60% between a Ryzen 5 3600 and a Core i9 9900KF??
The test here and their own results don't tally.
Or to frame it another way,how are the tests here indicating at worst a 15% delta between their stock Core i9 9900KF and a Ryzen 7 3700X and a Ryzen 9 3900X,and suddenly that is 50% to 60% with a Ryzen 5 3600 and the same Intel CPU,in a game which won't give two hoots about more than 6 threads??
The reason why I included the Ryzen 2000 results is because there is a comparisons with the Core i7 8700K and Core i9 9900K,and the difference is not 50% to 60% in Boston with a GTX1080 or RTX2080. So how does it work with a Ryzen 5 3600 which should be faster than any of the earlier Ryzen CPUs?? Ryzen 3000 being able to run faster RAM alone gives it a huge improvement alone over Ryzen 2000 - Fallout 4 is one of the games which loves fast RAM.
Edit to post.
I did find one video testing a Ryzen 5 3600 and a GTX1080TI with Fallout 4 :
RAM is running under specification at 3000MHZ,which definitely will reduce Fallout 4 performance(max officially rated speed is 3200MHZ).
So in one or two instances it does drop down to roughly 40FPS briefly in the city,but the problem is that its modded. One of the mods used is WOTC,which is a mod which massively increases the amount of spawns in the world and is one of the most performance hogging Fallout 4 mods out there(just read the comments at how much FPS is reduced and even the mod author states that it is intensive),as extra spawns means more NPCs fighting each other in the world too. True Storms, further increases draw calls as it generates more intense weather,pile of corpses which keeps death bodies much longer in the map,which further causes more CPU load and a few other graphical updates which do not help with increased draw calls.
So at this point I don't know how an unmodded playthrough(which this test requires) will get worse performance,especially with WOTC not installed.