"This advantage is very important for games, but not for most other purposes."
I disagree. The majority of desktop applications are only lightly threaded e.g. Adobe products, office suites, Electron apps, anything mostly written before 2008.
Save for heavy lifting in Adobe products those other apps don't meaningfully benefit from higher clock speeds as their operations aren't CPU bound. The high speed Intel chips see an advantage when there's a single CPU bound process maxing out a core. Office and Slack don't tend to do that (well maybe Slack...). Also if you've got multiple processes running full tilt Intel's clock speed advantage goes away because the chip clocks down so as to not melt.
So with a heavy desktop workload with multiple processes or threads the Intel chips aren't doing any better than AMD. It's only in the single heavy worker process situation where Intel's got the advantage and that advantage is only tens of percentage points better than AMD.
So Intel's maximum clock speed isn't the huge advantage it might seem.
You are right that those applications benefit from a higher single-thread performance.
Nevertheless, unlike in competitive games, the few percents of extra clock frequency that Intel previously had in Comet Lake versus Zen 2 and which Intel probably will have again in Rocket Lake versus Zen 3, are not noticeable in office applications or Web browsing, so they are not a reason to choose one vendor or the other.
I disagree. The majority of desktop applications are only lightly threaded e.g. Adobe products, office suites, Electron apps, anything mostly written before 2008.