Eh? Only chip Intel has right now to beat it in games is 9900k. The main weakness we're seeing is that boost clocks aren't going that high in games (compared to what is advertised). Is that due to the review samples, or will retail chips have the same problem?
The 8700K/9700K also beats it, though by slightly lesser margins:
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1869/bench/Cost_1.png In terms of gaming, the Ryzen 3000 chips are about equal with the 9600K, according to that chart.
You're right, the boost clocks (and potential overclocks, it seems) are somewhat underwhelming, but even if it boosted (or overclocked) to 4.5GHz hypothetically, it's still not a 9900K killer like many here had claimed.
My 8700K overclocks to 5.0GHz, frankly if there is a Ryzen 3000 chip that can beat this for gaming purposes, I will gladly upgrade to it. Heck, even if it beats a stock 8700K I'll probably jump onboard just because I'm bored of Intel (been using them since Core 2, mainly because they always lead in gaming) and just want an excuse to build an AMD gaming rig, apart from a lower price for equivalent cores/threads.
Was really looking forward to Zen 3000, but apart from 'more cores' (useful of course, just not so much for gaming) there really isn't any reason for me to 'upgrade'.