do keep in mind that current desktop intel 14nm is trading blows with amd 7nm in every aspect.
There's no deny that Intel's 14 nm process node (including 14+ and 14++), along with the original Broadwell architecture have both been superb - after all, they've lasted 6 years, going from the i7-5775C (4C, 8T, 3.7 GHz max clock) to the i9-10900K (10C, 20T, 5.3 GHz max clock).
But it's worth nothing that 14nm and 7nm don't really mean anything - they're just marketing names for the nodes, as nothing about either of them is actually 14 or 7 nm:
Intel 14nm vs TSMC N7
Fin pitch = 42 nm vs 30 nm
Fin width = 8 nm vs 6 nm
Fin height = 42 nm vs 52 nm
Gate pitch = 70 nm vs 64 nm
Metal pitch = 52 nm vs 40 nm
SRAM bitcell size = 0.0499 µm² vs 0.027 µm²
Intel didn't alter those figures much during the + and ++ revisions, but there was significant improvement with operating current and power dissipation, increasing the former by over 35% and the decreasing the latter by over 50% (comparing ++ to the original). Not that they wanted to, of course, but it was a necessity, bore out the 10nm issues.
However, the overall architecture design of Broadwell-to-Comet Lake is broaching its fundamental design limits. For example, Anandtech
tested the core-to-core latency (normally a strength of Intel's chips) with the 10900K and found a bigger than expected increase in latency, going from 8 cores to 10. They also found, along with
ourselves, that under full load, the PL2 draw is enormous:
It's impressive that the chips can withstand this heat, but it's the price that must be paid in order to hit the clock speeds that it does. And, of course, without these clocks, the latest Core processors just wouldn't have the gaming advantage that they do (regardless of the size of the advantage).
But let's stick to purpose of this particular review and your criticism that it doesn't perform as well as Intel in games - the 4500U test laptop had no discrete GPU, so it's not a fair direct comparison to include these values, in addressing the criticism. Why? Well, look at the following results:
Note the difference in the i7-1064G7 results, at 15W and at 15W with an MX250 - the inclusion of the discrete GPU more than doubles the average frame rate. Therefore, it only makes sense to compare the 4500U to 1065G7 when they're using the integrated GPU (although there are notable differences between those, there's not much one can do about that).
So we can see that the 4500U performs better in this test, and in Civ VI, and in Gears 5 (albeit by a small amount). In the CS:GO benchmark, it actually outperformed the 1065G7+MX250 combination.
Other Ryzen products are a different story and, of course, are covered in different reviews. In this one, the AMD product is better than the immediate competition, regardless as to one's views on the respective vendors.