Given both are on basically the same manufacturing process with basically the same architecture, it's really not surprising the i9-10900F isn't keeping up with the i9-9900K in max load scenarios. Having 50% more power easily makes up for 20% fewer cores.
Which is then also why the 4900HS is able to be so competitive with it. It's a 35W part but on a more advanced manufacturing node.
And although TDP is a made up number that has very little meaning, it is roughly what the CPU will settle into when the boost duration has exceeded. So eventually under a constant multithreaded workload the 9900K and 10900F should settle in to their 95W and 65W limits respectively.
> And although TDP is a made up number that has very little meaning, it is roughly what the CPU will settle into when the boost duration has exceeded. So eventually under a constant multithreaded workload the 9900K and 10900F should settle in to their 95W and 65W limits respectively.
this part isn't quite true. TDP for intel parts is more like max thermal dissipation at base clocks. most people/OEMs will couple a 9900k with a pretty beefy cooler and set the boost duration to be effectively infinite. in most cases, that part will never hit its base frequency under load. I have a 9700k, and, under the default bios settings for the motherboard, it will happily draw 120-140W indefinitely.
They will, but that's technically no longer stock. Prebuilt systems from mainstream OEMs are unlikely to be configured like that, especially when we're not talking about the enthusiast line of motherboards.
If the motherboard is following Intel's actually spec for these (which does exist), then it will settle in to the TDP limit after PL2's duration is exceeded, which is supposed to be 8 seconds for Intel's 95W spec.
It is likely that the unnamed HP system with the i9-10900F is at least following Intel's recommended settings here. The 9900K system might very well not be, though, which would then make the power budget gap that much wider.
Compare 10th gen i9 to i7:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/...
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/...
Eight oh eight eight? Eighty eighty eight?
Likely some thread affinity issue that just needs a patch.
Basically implies that Ryzen has better performance per watt, which doesn't affect absolute performance until you exhaust the power budget and have to lower the clock speed, i.e. use all the cores instead of just one.
edit: 4900HS, not 4900H
4900H: 4.4ghz boost, 3.3ghz base
4900HS: 4.3ghz boost, 3.0ghz base
[1] used in all 10core+ Intel CPUs.