Donot be driven by cyber marketing slides here and there mate.
Bring both systems and you know what I mean. No hate for either AMD or Intel , I am a perfromance oriented person regardless A or B , X or Y .As such, I have both top dogs from Intel and AMD. I get my hands dirty in a praticle sense in all areas as a hardware enthusiast. Streaming , mutitasking , and rendering (3ds Max, Maya and Revit, Vray , Cinema 4D, Blender etc..) are a blast on the i9 9900k.
Main disgrace about AMD is they are on 7nm and failing to beat an aging based 14nm Skylake architecture. Shouldnot they went 25% IPC + Easy 5Ghz not 25% IPC with low boost clock and they are lower as you go down in the cores hierarchy count.
I have tons of desktop-grade cpus, servers, including for DBA, Ryzen of different generations (including ThreadRipper), funky Xeon-D, Xeon Silver, Gold, even did tests on bleeding edge ARM64 boxes, the only missing (not for long) - EPYC.
And i use all that personally and for business applications, for very different workloads, not just synthetic benchmarks.
For example recently installed Xeon Gold 6230 MSRP $1900, and it is not impressive at all.
AMD is tricky to run sometimes (i had first top ryzen, it has several bugs, quite big errata, but not surprising for totally new architecture, and sometimes not all mobo+cpu combination works), but when it runs, it beats Intel in all serious workloads.
And Intel... Intel have drawbacks on each corner, if you look little closer. For example installing 384G of RAM for beefy system with 2-way or 4-way will drop clock of it to the floor because of memory management overhead. Or AVX512 that drops CPU performance significantly as well and does opposite what it is designed for. On AMD it is much less tricky.
As usual, proof of some reputable benchmarks:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/730908/contributions/3153163/attachments/1730954/2810149/epyc.pdf