So much of what I said got completely ignored or only bits and pieces of what I said were analyzed with a very limited perspective to drill the point about single threaded wattage / TDP into the ground, and that wasn't even stated clearly by the other person in the first place, though the disparaging reply with the reiteration of that later that had even smaller numbers tried to make it seem so.
I would like to point out too that I already differentiated TDP (...which is going to relate to package power / PL1) and platform power and stated that platform power is more important, though I did mention TDP in my posts.
So why would I have mentioned TDP at all, or intel "violating" the specified TDP?
Intel defines TDP: “TDP. . . The thermal design power is the maximum power a processor can draw for a thermally significant period while running commercially useful software. . . TDP includes all power dissipated on-die from VDD, VDDNB, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT and VDDA."
PL1 is usually equals this specification, and package power as reported by software is compared with TDP / PL1 / PL2. I did state that I believed intel routinely violates its specified TDP (PL1), especially in the 8th Gen U series which require a 64A capable VRM and 44w PL2 (on most 8th Gen notebooks), which means both package power and performance of the 8th Gen CPUs greatly varies depending on both the TDP(-up) specification (PL1 15w / 25w) and if the thermal solution can actually handle much higher clock speeds for longer periods of time for PL2 (usually 44w)
My statements weren't meant only to apply to Geekbench either. Also, testing on a Desktop CPU with half the cores, significantly lower running temperature (hello, I already mentioned this affects power consumption) and significantly less cache, to prove me wrong, when I was speculating about a laptop CPU with twice the cores, threads, much higher temperature (resulting in higher leakage current) and a turbo speed 300 MHz higher (which, of course, was conveniently swapped in a reply for an 8550u to prove a newly fabricated point) makes little sense.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-13-9370-i5-8250U-4K-UHD-Laptop-Review.279736.0.html
https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/_processed_/8/5/csm_stresscpu1_cc30c28da7.png
So in the above links, it is interesting that we see a Core i5 8250u in the Dell XPS 13 allowing 46w maximum package power until the CPU borders Tjunction Max at up to 3.4 GHz (settling to 25w @ 2.5 GHz). Cinebench results also much better during the first run with significant falloff afterwards as reported by the reviewer, and I'm betting that power consumption during that initial run is very high.
Of course, they are stress testing with Prime95, but that is still a maximum of 11.5w package power per core at only 3.4 GHz. I must have been crazy to claim it was highly likely that intel allows CPUs to exceed 15w package power with single threaded loads at much higher speeds and voltage, right? That hypothesis was really not that far fetched.
Initially, I was more interested in the maximum power Apple or Intel are allowing their processors to draw when under different loads - the comments about intel and its TDP specification were really not the main focus, though another user made it that. I was wondering if Apple's turbo behavior was similar to intel processors, allowing very high power draw for short periods of time or during very short benchmark durations.
We don't actually have solid data for the intel chips, except half-truths from a user with a processor based on a different die, and no data for Apple, so it doesn't really matter. This thread should get back on topic.