Maybe but we can't tell from this article which should have compared against the $75 Core i3-9100F or maybe the $160 Core i5-9400F, instead of filling their graphs full of unavailable, ancient Intel parts like the 4th-gen core i7 that launched in 2014, and then listing the 2014 MSRP as if that was a relevant point of comparison.
There's a hint as to why they didn't include the i3-9100F in the conclusion section: "Even with this, Intel's ability to provide enough stock of these low-end parts, depending on your location, is questionable as previously mentioned. Case in point: the company never even made it as far as sampling any of the 9th Generation i3 parts for review."
So GN looked at it, the lack of the IGPU basically killed the i3-9100F in premiere pro as did the lower base clock; even compared to the 3100. The i5 parts seem to do better particularly the 9600K (I don't see the 9400F which again would be hampered by the lack of an IGPU).
There are currently a bunch of this articles (and videos) out there.
Other do compare against that CPUs and it's still much better to buy the Ryzen then the Intel ones (at least if you go headless or if you will put one a dedicated GPU anyway).
R3s outcompete i3s, pretty much across the board. They are bested by i5+ for gaming, but not by much. They are competitive with, or beat i5s in productivity.
The top comment on HN for the Anandtech article (at the time of my posting) is about a comparison for a budget machine. They choose an i5-9400, because this includes an iGPU. If you are going for extreme budget, the low-tier Intel chips may win for this reason.