Look I'm not arguing about which CPU is better. I'm arguing that taking the geometric mean of a bunch of completely unrelated benchmarks doesn't make any sense. There are clearly workloads in this very article where a cheaper part is better, sometimes even a cheaper AMD part.
And the article states clearly: "[the Core i9-9900KS] does pull out ahead in a number of ST tests as well as in low resolution (CPU-bound) gaming."
Regarding the geomean, they clearly state that their benchmarks prioritize multi-core benchmarks: "This metric also puts the 3900X above the 9900KS, because despite the 5.0 GHz all-core on 8-cores, moving to 12-core and 16-core at almost the same performance per core gives more of an advantage in our test suite's MT-heavy workloads."
They're not hiding behind anything. Everything is clearly stated.
If you want to game @ 1080p and do mostly single threaded work (without parallelism), this CPU is not for you. If do a lot of single-threaded jobs in parallel (for example, gaming + being a server or gaming and streaming) or anything multi-threaded, this CPU destroys the 9900k, while being just a bit weaker when doing just one or two single-threaded tasks.