Cap ,you startin' all wrong here ...
Let me explain ....
The
3000K 80 CRI ,( let us name it 80 for ease ) has plenty of
amber wls ( ~600 nm ) ,which actually :
i) Are probably the most efficient driving PS .
I.e . That goes for tomato...
Comparing the treatments most effective in increasing photosynthesis from previous codes, code 8-T revealed no light qualities to be superior to full spectrum light in driving photosynthesis.However, amber light alone was
as effective as full spectrum light in driving photosynthesis. Full spectrum light deficient in BL
and CY light,or using only RD/DR light yielded significantly lower carbon fixation rates.
https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/7718/Hawley_David_2013_MSc.pdf?sequence=1
ii) Amber light 'penetrates' enough the top leaf canopy ,
onto lower levels of foliage ,thus increasing overall photosynthesis.
From the other hand the 3000K 90+ CRI is rich in red wls (~630 nm) ,mainly feeding young and /or top canopy leaves .
Red light does not 'penetrate' as it get's mostly absorbed (>90% ) from the top canopy leaves .
But it excites more the Photosystem I that the amber wls ...So while the ambers are good for long duration PS
(like the 18 hour of vegging ) ,they are "poor" photon-wise for shorter term PS (like the 12 hours of flowering ) .
At shorter 'day-times',like when flowering ,longer wls of red (deep reds ,even better) ,provide the number of photons needed for "max rate PS " ,still mainly affecting top / young foliage .
Having 'max rates" of PS ,for long "day-times " is / can be counter productive .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another basic difference is the FR output power of 90+ ,which is ~ double than 80...
That's no good from seed/clone start till about the mid of flowering .
90+ will cause 'some' to ' too much' stretching .
But ,taking the two CXAs as example ,you can see this :
For 80 :
-R:FR (660:730) =
6.305
-PPE /PPS =
0.659
-Pfr : Pr =
1.931
For 90+:
-R:FR (660:730) =
4.049
-PPE /PPS =
0.626
-Pfr : Pr =
1.676
As you can see 80 has 6.3x times more 660 nm (+/- 5 nm ) power than 730 nm (+/- 5 nm ) .
While 90+ has 4x times more 660 nm power than 730 nm ...
View attachment 3280494
PPE/PPS (Phy Photo Equilibrium aka PPS Phy photo stationary state ) = Pfr / P total ...
When Pr molecules are exposed to red light, most of
them absorb it and are converted to Pfr, but some of the Pfr
also absorbs the red light and is converted back to Pr
because both Pr and Pfr absorb red light . Thus
the proportion of phytochrome in the Pfr form after saturating
irradiation by red light is only about 85%. Similarly,
the very small amount of far-red light absorbed by Pr
makes it impossible to convert Pfr entirely to Pr by broadspectrum
far-red light. Instead, an equilibrium of 97% Pr
and 3% Pfr is achieved.
This equilibrium is termed the photostationary
state.
.85 is max "no flowering" signal ,under 660 nm irradiation.
.03 is max "flowering" signal ,under FR irradiation.
( Dark conversion Pfr=>Pr ,drops PPE to almost 0 => " full flowering signal" )
90+ has ~ .63 PPE ... from 63% total Pfr wiil /has to drop to 0 during the night-hours ...
80 has ~ .66 PPE ...
More Pfr to turn into Pr during darkness (66%),
thus longer flowering -& bigger yields -,slow maturing ,longer harvesting 'window' ...
On the contrary 90+ will cause shorter flowering period ,faster maturing,shorter harvesting time-window ..
It reassures that during 12 of darkness ,less Pfr has to be transformed to Pr .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larger stokes shift for the 90+ = unavoidable lower radiometric efficiency .
Thus lower Quantum efficiency ( umol/J ) .
Thus lower PS rates .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As it becomes pretty obvious ,while the 80 is fine to bring plants
from vegetive stage all the way to the harvest date ,
the 90+ won't make it ....
Plants will be stretchy,foliage will be thick and with reduced surface ...
Plants will be 'signaled' the wrong way ,from the start ...
They will grow to be "high irradiation" adapted ,only to 'face' the unefficiency of 90+ ...
So ,they are doomed ,as their "light -capturing " ,both physiology & biochemistry profile ,
are totally wrong ,for the overall light power supplied.Plants will suffer yield-wise ,
although individual flower-buds ,will show some favourable characteristics ,as increased density and 'thickness' due to the red /deep red wls ,'supporting' the ( young +top level )
bud leaves.But the " wet -soon -to-be-dry biomass" will suffer ,big time.
So ,they can not be really directly compared in a 'versus' grow ....
Their "role" to a grow led light is way -totally different ...
One is nominated as " fully capable PS light source " ,while the other
can be characterised merely as 'enhancing ' or 'supplementing ' light source ...
With 5000-4000K 70-80 CRI ,is not actually like that ...
As they too can grow a plant from start to finish ....
They can deliver most leafy-veggies to the harvest point ...
But they 'suffer 'yielding flowers or fruits ...
So, in our case ,they are also 'enhancing ' or 'supplementing ' light sources .
Cheers.
. 
...." Epistars " 
