I think anyone still following this thread, if they haven't already done so, should look at
this post by Zach_01 for Intel's own summary of TDP for their chips, as well as watch (as in the whole thing; I know it's long-ish) the
GN video on AMD TDP linked a couple posts later.
Things we've learned over the course of this thread (YMMV):
- TDP does not mean, and has never meant, maximum power consumption
- It can, however, resemble average power consumption at base frequency, particularly with Intel
- Intel and AMD calculate TDP differently, in ways that don't necessarily produce a useful value for an end user
- Modern turbo and boost strategies can push power consumption well past TDP for short periods
- Certain computational loads can also drive it higher over longer periods.
- Overclocking completely obviates TDP as a useful value.
My takeaway is this: neither manufacturer is lying about TDP, AFAICT. It's more Thermal Design Power not actually meaning what it sounds like it should, and we DIY-ers latching onto it because it's all there is (outside of reviews and such, of course). Something more meaningful would be nice, but I'm not sure there's a compelling reason for either company to provide it. If they do, it's certainly not going to be on behalf of a "handful" of enthusiasts on forums. I mean, if even the cooler manufacturers are unhappy with it, and the chipmakers won't provide something better for them, it's probably a lost cause.
