Consider the question behind that gap. TDP and the reason why a midrange part is capped like that, with such a big disparity to the higher parts.
We know historically Intel had trouble getting 10nm CPUs to higher frequencies. A way to get them there, is more power. We already have stacks where the 65W vs 95W CPUs exist, but we also know they can royally exceed that metric. It remains to be seen how artificial the segmentation here really is.
This is valid for AMD also. Midrange parts, for example, non-X CPU have lower top clocks, cause...that is just a way to differentiate things.
Intel doesn't have any problem hitting anything. That is how semiconductors work, power scales exponentially with voltage and frequency.
AMD also has this issue, but less so, because they had an IPC advantage so they afforded to use lower top frequencies on their highest end CPUs, while staying in a decent power level.
Intel...is choosing this strategy to give you absolute top performance if you don't care about power and this is ABSOLUTELY FINE.
So AMD being very power efficient is thanks to 2 main things:
- 7nm TSMC is better than Intel 10nm;
- AMD clocks their top CPUs lower, hence they are in a better efficiency spot;
As a matter of fact, you can read the 10900 CPU review here on techpowerup. You'll see that, because it is not clocked as high as K parts, its efficiency is very similar to Zen 2 parts.
