Yes, and your CPU is taking 55W more, which is like 1/3 more of 5800X3D so it should have about 1/3 better performance and clearly it does not have that.
Curious why i have not seen any Xeon with E-Cores
More like 20 more watts in gaming, now look at the 5900x/5950x and the 7900x/7950x in gaming. That not quite half the power of a 13700k/13900k is it ?
X3D are an outlier. Weaker than the regular chips in applicative, but much, much more efficient in gaming, because the design is just really optimized for gaming. Even the classic Ryzen seems massively inefficient versus their 3D counter part in gaming. But X3D chip are only attractive to gamers, other users will find a better price/performance with the classic Ryzen.
The comparison between a 13900k and a 5800x3D is only a thing because Intel doesn't sell a gaming focused chip, but the i9 happens to be the fastest intel chip for gaming. Still, those two products are meant for two radically different target. What's a 5800x3D is going to accomplish against the i9 in applicative ? And a pure gamer will ultimately benefit more from a 13600k/strong GPU combo. The i9 only give you 2% more performance.
Using the i9 as your reference in a pure gaming scenario is a bit disingenuous. Even in intel own line-up that's the least efficient CPU for gaming. The 13600k make it look bad in that specific scenario, just like it also make the 7900x/7950x looks bad in gaming if we are going to cherry pick.
Intel is indeed less efficient, just not as much as you try to paint it, once you look at the bigger picture. Look at the graphs on TPU, and you will see a few games in which a 13700K use less, or as much power as a 7900x.