Yeah, I've owned ONE Intel processor my entire life, I guess that makes me an Intel fanboy... smh. Enthusiasts/gamers would have realized almost a decade ago that the most bang for you buck is in your graphics card, not your CPU and not your RAM, though there are gains to be had there. And they would have realized that same decade ago that your best bang for your buck in CPUs is, and has always been, AMD. People have been paying huge sums of money for incremental gains for the better part of 2 decades and you seem to be butthurt when someone scoffs at your comment. Guess where professional gamers throw their money... that's right, at incremental gains. And for "only" 10 fps gain, in one of those benchmarks, that represents nearly a 25% difference. And realistically, if you can't tell the difference between 117 and 127 fps, you're not likely to be able to tell the difference if it was an extra 50 fps.
I will say this again: CPUs aren't the bottle neck in video game performance. And judging a CPU solely by video game performance is lazy. As far as how you don't see anything close to a 30% difference, perhaps you should check out the benchmarks at Anandtech in the link on this article...