I honestly do not like the way the vast majority of sites benchmark. Ultra settings at 1080p and up will flatten the results of a lot of games. I think that’s part of the story. It's an average experience that might be what you see most of the time, and you don't want people to think a cpu is going to give them this huge performance boost at all times when it won't. But as a gamer, especially one that plays a lot of twitchy games, or games at competitive settings, I want to know how well my cpu will handle the worst cases. You can adjust options in most games to lower your graphics to get through gpu bound dips, but there's rarely anything you can do about the cpu.
For example, in apex legends I can cruise around at a pretty constant 230fps with competitive settings, but there are particular spots on the maps where I drop to 140fps like a hard cap. It's my 3600x at it's limit. If I had a 10600K, I'd probably wouldn't see as much as of a dip. Warzone is another game like this. Nakatomi plaza is a cpu test. There's a youtube guy, FrameChasers, who pretty much does overclocking benchmarks for warzone at Nakatomi and those are pretty useful because they'll really show you show well a cpu will really handle the worst cases. Warzone is latency sensitive, it scales across many cores and it'll take advantage of clock and IPC increases. It just scales to everything, so if your cpu has a weak spot you'll see it at that area of the map. His personality is off-putting, but in terms of seeing what a cpu can actually I think his results are actually pretty beneficial.
Capframex is also nice, because they do 720p tests and really make sure they're getting the gpu out of the picture. The results aren't flattened by gpu limits, so I think they give you a better idea of how much improvement you'll see from a higher end cpu in the worst cases, or with future titles that have heavier demands on the cpu.
Edit: I think the way I'd personally select for a cpu is to try to select one that will match my display. How well can it maintain the fps limit I want, so that I can always just adjust graphics settings to have a consistent experience. If you're a 60fps gamer (poor souls) then the choices are a lot easier than if you're gaming at 240fps+. The fact that I have a 240Hz display, but I can rarely maintain it with a ryzen 3600x is kind of a drag. But if I had a 144Hz display, I think with the exception of ray tracing it would be a much better match.
Edit: This guy's personality can be ... off putting, but he's got a 12900k review up. He doesn't do comprehensive reviews and he doesn't try to use typical gamer settings (3200 ram) etc. He overclocks each platform to it's max with the lowest latency memory it'll support. Then he compares. His details can be a nice data point to look at alongside other review sites.
