0.1% lows and optimisation in general is disgraceful (9800X3D/4090 system)

Edited: Here is a video of the best CPU money can buy overclocked to 6.9GHz on liquid nitrogen by very experienced team/user running on a system that's as perfectly optimised.
At (11:55), you can see the results (AVG FPS 1262/0.1% lows of 418). This is on an open air test bench,

Having 1% lows that are only 33% of AVERAGE (not max, important to note that) is terrifying and a damning indictment of the competency levels within Valve surrounding optimisation. Here's an infamous tweet that everyone should take a look at. These are the people in charge of the biggest steam game/competitive shooter in the world.
https://x.com/ZPostFacto/status/1714015120240894378

My system is a 9800X3D and an RTX 4090, CL30 6000MHz RAM and an extremly good cooling solution and the best reuslt from the FPS benchmark I can get is 910 FPS avg and 315 as my 0.1% lows. SP score is 112 so the silicon is the tier of engineering samples. Fresh install of windows, optimised etc

Many users have shared the Hardware Unboxed results from the benchmarking he did for the 9800X3D (Link to the post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/1gn9134/optimized_game_vs_unoptimized_game_similar/ )
Something worth noting is that, because they were running benchmarks before the release of actual benchmark workshop maps the numbers you see in that post for referncing Hardware Unboxed's results contains numbers that are inflated as their method of benchmarking is watching the same demo. This can lead to very inconsistent results and is not a very reliable method of getting real world performance.

Link to the benchmark map I use: https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=3240880604

1680x1050 Res as this yeilds the best results for some reason - Nvidia default because changing anything there makes 0 difference, and trust me I've done every tweak you can - I even wrote this post a while back trying to help users https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/1b4ead8/the_placebo_bible_all_known_cs2_performance_fixs/

Would be interested for you guys to run some benchmarks yourselves and post the results!

However, the primary point is that no amount of waiting for hardware to improve or get better will fix this. It's entirely down to incompetent at best or actively lackluster work at worst from the developers responsible both during the primary CS2 development cycle and the current ongoing support by the smaller team that currently manages the game. To prove this point, below is a link to Tony Yu (Asus General Manager) running the same benchmark I run on my system on a liquid nitrogen cooled 9800X3D overclocked to 6.9GHz:

https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-has-been-overclocked-to-6-9-ghz

To achieve such a massive gap in numbers requires a level of incompetency that's unacceptable for a franchise as storied as CS and a company as wealthy as Valve and any opinion on the contrary is wrong, it's just that simple sadly.

No amount of waiting for hardware to improve will ever fix this as evidenced by the Tony Yu video (gives a good idea of what a CPU in 5-10 years could look like), this requires a focused effort from developers and actual investment from Valve to bring in more resources for optimisation. The performance degredation patch per patch is evidence enough that without this, CS2 will get worse and worse as time progresses.

I know this is reddit, and I know a small minority of you will arbitrarily disagree with this post because you're idiots and that's ok