News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 ... by zrm on Thursday April 16, 2020 @12:18PM (#22890889)
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

Re:10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 ... by kllrnohj on Thursday April 16, 2020 @01:30PM (#22891616)
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.
Re:10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 ... by zrm on Thursday April 16, 2020 @04:48PM (#22893387)
Interestingly even the faster 4900H has a lower TDP than the 65W i9-10900F.