At the turbo clock the i9-10900F is 5GHz vs. 4.3Ghz for Ryzen 9 4900HS. At the base clock the i9-10900F is 2.8GHz vs. 3GHz for the Ryzen 9 4900HS.

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

Small nit but the comparison here is against the 4900HS

    4900H:  4.4ghz boost, 3.3ghz base
    4900HS: 4.3ghz boost, 3.0ghz base

With the non-S variant being the more power hungry one with an up to 54W TDP vs. the S's 35W TDP.

Interestingly even the faster 4900H has a lower TDP than the 65W i9-10900F.

Multithreaded applications tend to share a lot of data between threads, and we already know Intel's mesh fabric core interconnect[1] seems to be inferior to AMD's chiplet+io die in terms of performance and access latency uniformity.

[1] used in all 10core+ Intel CPUs.

AMD's 4000 APUs are monolithic and don't use separate chiplets and IO die. The chiplet + infinity fabric has higher latency than Intel, but that's not a problem for the APUs.

The 10900 uses a ring and IMO the mesh is superior to Infinity Fabric.

this part isn't quite as hard for me to believe. intel cores are less efficient than amd cores, so they have to downclock more when more cores are loaded.

throttling