You're going to die if you're around to witness either (if you didn't already pass out from smoke/heat/lack of oxygen). It literally doesn't matter.

The advantage of suburbs in which houses are mostly built from non-flammable materials is that while maybe one or two rows of houses closest to forested areas will likely burn out, there won't be enough calorific potential for the fire to propagate further into the suburb.

Also for firefighting efforts the difference between a house burning out and a house burning down is huge. The former means that most of the fire is already contained in a non-flammable structure, reducing the risk of spreading and also making efforts to quench it with water more effective.

"Brick is much worse than wood for wind-stoked wildfires" is a strange take. If a wildfire is approaching, I'll take a town built from brick rather than plywood any day.

Think about what you’ve just written… you’re saying that a stone building is less safe than a wood building in a fire.

Have we seen any stone cities burn down lately? Because I haven’t seen London burn down since they replaced all the wooden houses with brick in 1666.

Wind-stoked wildfires are not cat4 or something tornadoes.