Thanks for the review! I'm not sure I see much point in testing Firestrike Extreme and games @ 1440p. In both tests the differences between CPUs will be diminished compared to normal Firestrike and 1080p and there should be no changes in the relative performance of the CPUs. Also, this part was a bit confusing:
"Memory speeds were set at DDR4-3000 15-15-15-35 for all testing, regardless of the kit specifications. The only exception to this is the AMD system running at DDR4-2933 16-15-15-35, this is due to how the memory dividers and timings are handled."
Doesn't this mean that memory speeds were set to the latter, with the only exception being the Intel system?
Regarding the CPUs, I agree with DaveB about which comparisons would have been the most interesting, but I fully understand that you'd rather spend your money somewhere else. I don't know if getting funding for hardware aquisitions through kickstarter projects is viable, but could be worth a try, maybe? In any case, there are sites that have some comparable data for those CPUs as well as Ryzen 3. Here's the gist of one 1300X review:
Production workloads: The Ryzen 3 1300X is slower than the i3-7350K when using a single thread, but faster when using all threads. The i5-7600K is faster than the 1300X regardless of amount of threads used. Overclocking to around 4 GHz doesn't really change this, although for some reason in Adobe Premiere the overclocked 1300X did do better than a stock i5-7600K (but there was no info on the stock performance).
Gaming, 1080p: The Ryzen 3 1300X is the slowest of the bunch, even when overclocked to 4.1 GHz and compared to stock Intels. Even the 1% and 0.1% lows are generally worse than with the stock i3-7350K - and yes, even with that 4.1 GHz overclock. Interestingly the stock 1300X is between a Phenom II X6 @ 4 GHz and a stock i3-6300 in Watch Dogs 2 and can't match a stock FX-8370 even when overclocked but this might be due to optimization issues.