Leaving aside what qualifies as an overclock and what doesn't, you seem to care more about an arbitrary number than the whole package. And while you may find AMD's result pathetic, the vast majority of us believe that what they've achieved is rather impressive.

Looks like with Geforce Now, only the games that are opted in will be available on the service ... those that haven’t opted in as of May 31 will be removed. There goes the first cloud streaming service that remotely peaked my interest! Luckily for many, it had a 90 day trial period so not much was lost in terms of money. We will see how that steam cloud thing does.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2020/05/27/geforce-now-library-may/

I play high fps games, all I need is fast cores. When I look at the gaming benchmarks all I see is AMD lagging behind behind because of low clocks and that's frustrating. Going wide is pretty much pointless for my use case. Feels like AMD is only catching up because Intel stands still and rather than good engineering they're profiting off slow natural evolution.

"Dishonored studio Arkane teases 20th anniversary celebration plans "

I'd love to see Arx Fatalis remaster, it's not only their (IMO) best game, but quite brilliant RPG and spiritual successor to Ultima Underworld.

Intel's advantage in gaming is not only a matter of clocks. A lot of software is optimized for Intel processors (and why not if it is leading with a huge marketshare), giving them an advantage over AMD that's most noticeable in games.

Also, given that you plan to get a 4K screen, your GPU will limit you more than the CPU. Even a 10900K with a 2080Ti can't run Rocket League above 144Hz at 4K, and that's only a handful fps more than what a 3900 does right now (source).

When it comes to the Intel vs AMD thing in gaming, I think it's very dependent on what you are trying to achieve and your budget. If you are playing games at 1080p and don't have a GPU bottleneck, then yea, Intel would be the best choice no doubt because your bottleneck is the CPU. If you are doing 1440p or higher, then you have a few more things to consider. AMD gives you a better platform with PCI-E 4.0 even in their cheaper B series motherboards which also allows you to overclock and etc. You also don't need a super beefy cooler either as you would with Intel if you wanted to overclock that. And you also get the core advantage, production/streaming advantages and etc if that matters.

Realistically though, I doubt many pair an i9 10900k with 2080Ti and plays at 1080p...

Yeah. Depends on what you are aiming to achieve within a set budget.

If you have a $1,000 budget and you want to game at 1440P/4k, then AMD is the absolute best option on the market, saving some cash on the CPU/Motherboard side of the equation allows you to invest more in the GPU which will give you the largest performance improvement.

If you are into eSports/MMO and only wish to do 1080P-1440P and prioritize framerates, then sacrificing a little bit of GPU performance and investing in an Intel rig is probably your best best.

Then you have people who might only upgrade once a decade, more cores tends to age that little better over the long term... And AMD's multi-threaded capabilities far exceeds Intel right now at every single price point.

For all the old-timers like me the good news comes from Ubisoft:
The Anno History Collection appears in a few weeks.

It includes 64bit versions with 4k support of the classics:
Anno 1602, Anno 1503, Anno 1404 and Anno 1701
All with working multiplayer parts (yes that includes Anno 1503)

But it's also Ubisoft with probably a mandated uDontPlay client requirement...

It's actually worse than that: You can only get the four games and the collection from UPlay. Steam only gets Anno 1404's History Edition and the Epic Store gets 1404 and 1701.