What this test shows is that even at 1080P, we are often hitting GPU limits on the GTX 1080 if running at ultra settings / max AA in the latest games.
I touched on this topic in the other thread about Coffee Lake and it's merits for gaming. Is Ryzen 'bad' at gaming? No, not at all. It's a competent gaming CPU but its true strengths lie in its MT performance. Its performance 'ceiling' at gaming is a lot lower than a highly clocked i7, and you only need to find a non GPU limited test like this one to prove it:
http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bot...ed-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585
Yes, it does take a 1080 GTX Ti to truly show the differences between an i7 and Ryzen, and not many of us can afford such a high end GPU. However, what about the next generation of GPUs? Or the ones after? These will be as fast or faster than the 1080 GTX Ti. We tend to hang on to our CPUs much longer than GPUs, and a faster gaming CPU remains relevant for longer without seriously bottlenecking future GPU upgrades.
For example, I'm still running my 2011 era i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz and it started out running a then top of the line Radeon 7970. That was then upgraded to a GTX 970 in 2015 and I upgraded again to a Radeon Fury earlier in the year. I would estimate the Radeon Fury to be roughly 2.0x the performance of the 7970... would have I have been able to get the full benefits from the GPU upgrades had I opted for a cheaper, slower CPU at the time, say an i3 or AMD FX CPU? I would say probably not.
The same arguments can probably be made about CPUs today. Unless games suddenly became massively multi-threaded in the next couple of years, I would bet that a 7700K would remain 'relevant' for gaming longer than a R5 would be. When it comes to gaming, IPC + clockspeed are still the most important metrics. Thread count is important in certain games (AOTS, for example) but that is more of an exception than the norm.