While I haven't benchmarked, my reasoning is that for parallel workloads (especially VMs but also containers), penalty from context-switching should be vastly reduced by even those slower cores.
The RK3588 doesn’t beat the N100 in anything but throughput - I have been benchmarking a number of SBCs lately to consult on building custom industrial edge devices and in terms of bang for the buck and PCI lane availability (as in actually accessible lanes) the Rockchip designs work out a little cheaper. I have one of those 4xNVMe NAS boards to test next, and expect it to be pretty snappy for the same wattage-but it all depends on the use case.
(I also have an X4, am waiting for an SSD for it for proper testing)
The reason why RK3588 may beat N100 in multi-threaded benchmarks is that the latter has a very low base clock frequency, due to the higher power consumption when all the cores are active. N100 needs a better cooling than RK3588 in order to reach its maximum possible multi-threaded speed. With good enough cooling that will prevent the drop in clock frequency, N100 will beat easily RK3588 in any benchmark, because the Intel Gracemont cores have a speed similar to the Arm Cortex-A78 cores and much greater than the Cortex-A76 cores of RK3588.
It should be noted that Radxa X4, due to the constraints of the credit card size, has only a 32-bit DRAM interface. So its -4800 memory is equivalent with a -2400 memory of the bigger N100 boards, which use a 64-bit DRAM interface. The good RK3588 boards also use a 64-bit DRAM interface (with a somewhat lower speed, e.g. -4267), so they may win in benchmarks that are limited by memory bandwidth.
However in the applications in which I am interested for such a small board like Radxa X4 (like a network router/firewall or a controller for some custom hardware) the performance is almost always limited by the speed of the peripheral interfaces, so Radxa X4 will be better than any existing Arm-based SBC.