on any of my recommendations as others, look at your games/programs you use, than start looking at which side and what processor. Chances are one side is beating the other, even with lesser cores.Either that's what you're looking for- and you need to be looking at 1% and 0.1% for your workloads, not just 'FPS'- or you get AMD and get more cores.
And AMD users have paid hand over fist for it. At least Intels board upgrades guaranteed plug-and-play usage. Seen the thread on Ryzen memory speeds? Lol.
This is on you- there should be no stability difference.
This would depend on your system configuration and testing scenario. If loading down the CPU, yes, the AMD system should feel 'more responsive' just due to having more cores. But that would be the same if you'd upgraded to an Intel system with more cores too.
For reasons I haven't bothered to dig in to, AMD has not provided great support for VR. If that's your goal, an Nvidia GPU is highly recommended (otherwise, yeah, get the 5700XT).
On the plug and play, I had no issues with my X470/X570 when I researched what memory to buy. My 32GB and 16GB kits ran at advertised speeds by second reboot. However, I will not dismiss that X370 had growing pains, but most of those are ironed out by now. Also, Intel plug and play? Early adopters of the X99 platforms also had issues, to assume one is problem free and the other is not is a bit dishonest.
Stability was the wrong word, smoother is what I should have said.
Sure you can say toss more cores from the intel side to, but let me know how many 6-8 code intel parts with hyper threading are $200 or less. That’s why I said no budget buy a 9900K/2080 Ti and on budget look up upgrading to a newer Ryzen that is supported by his motherboard.
About VR, since it is my demo system I take to fundraisers/work down days, or when I have to clean my loop I can still game without rushing. It really does not need an upgrade, however, if I could ever find a VR review for the 5700 XT it might make the purchase easier.