You would have a point if the difference between fast LL RAM and slower RAM wasn't as drastic. You are potentially losing over 15% in gaming performance by using cheaper RAM. That is a huge performance hit. In fact, you're probably better off with a cheaper Ryzen 1400/1500 + LL RAM compared to a Ryzen 1600 with slower RAM, if gaming performance was your primary focus.
I personally don't like the idea of pairing a $200+ CPU with a $60 motherboard, but that is just me. If you are telling me that the majority of AMD Ryzen users will consciously choose the absolute cheapest motherboard to go with their $200+ CPU, then I will concede your point. Matter of the fact is, generally, higher end CPUs get matched with higher end motherboards.
And the performance of a 8600K @ 5GHz + a GTX 1070 would be in a completely different tier to a 1600 @ 4GHz + GTX 1070, especially if you limit the Ryzen to high latency DDR4-3000 (yes, 4GHz is possible if you don't gimp on the cooling and choose the cheapest motherboards with poor VRMs
)
I disagree. I would be willing to bet that an i3 8100 + GTX 1080 will achieve better framerates than an overclocked 1600 + GTX 1070. Even if the i3 is bottlenecked somewhat, the GTX 1080 is a 20% faster GPU than the GTX 1070. The 1600 is not a 20% faster CPU at gaming compared to the i3 8100. In fact, I'm not even convinced it's actually a faster gaming CPU at all (even when overclocked)
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/20.html
The i3 8100 at 3.6GHz will sit in between the i5 7500 and 7600K, it is hardly a 'slow' CPU that will stutter in games. The systems above are using a GTX 1080 btw.
Yes, I chose 720P to highlight the differences in gaming performance before GPU bottlenecking is taken into account. Even at 1080P, the 1600 is behind the i5 7500/7600K, but the margin is less because the GPU would be the limiting factor more often at 1080P.
Still completely debunks your claim that an i3 8100 will 'stutter' with a GTX 1080.