Yes and it lost every browser bench, lost or wash every encoding besides 7zip, lost most system tests, and lost almost every office CPU test. Again we're discussing a $400-$500 8 core part Vs a $300 4 core part. It was a terrible product that revisionist history paints as good cause its bulldozer predessor was worse than an elementary school science project, and because Intel has been re-releasing the same CPU for like 5 generations. Noone was buying Ryzen 1000s, 2000s, or even 3000s.
You said it lost or equalled every encoding task besides 7-Zip, yet the review I linked has it also winning in WinRAR, TrueCrypt and H264 HQ. Obviously it lost in browser, office and general system tests, because these tests are heavily focused on single core performance, where it was behind. But again, the reason to get a 1700X was not to run Chrome faster, but to improve performance in heavily threaded productivity applications where you could get a 50% performance boost or more. That makes it a specialised product, not a worthless product.
And when Zen 2 came around, the IPC gap was closed, and in the Anandtech review the 3900X won every single encoding test vs. the similarly priced i9 9900k:
www.anandtech.com
Their conclusion:
"It’s in these categories where AMD’s strengths lie: In the majority of our system benchmarks,
AMD more often than not is able to best Intel’s Core i7-9700K and i9-9900K in terms of performance. It was particularly interesting to see the new 3rd gen Ryzens post larger improvements in the web tests, all thanks to Zen 2’s improved and larger op cache.
In anything that is more than lightly multi-threaded, AMD is also able to take the performance crown among mainstream desktop processors, thanks to their inclusion of 12 cores in their top SKU Ryzen 3900X."