A good exemple, yes, but of urban legend.
The 8370 is at 125W only with Prime 95, with Cinebench it s around 100W...
Same goes for the 9590, it is close to 200W only in Prime 95, with Cinebench it s around 165W, dunno from where you pulled your "in reviews used much more", but certainly not from actual reviews..
https://www.computerbase.de/2013-07/amd-fx-9590-prozessor-test/7/#abschnitt_leistungsaufnahme
The delta in Prime 95 amount to 180W at the CPU level , not even 200W...
I should have clarified about the clock speed aspect. Overclocking FX and even Sandy/Ivy you get to an eventual scenario where you run into monstrous power consumption with not a corresponding increase in performance.
Anandtech showed in an identical system, the 9590 using 113W more than an 8150 w/o overclocking. I ran into air cooling limits with my 8320 @ 4.4, but it was pretty good there.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8316...the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/5
And the gap here is kind of mind boggling
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-17.html
Jay saw more than 100W added on an 8350 when overclocked
Skip to ~13M here for 8350@4.7 figures.
Unfortunately, the review I was looking for on 9xxx eludes me, I'll try to find it.
The bottom line is that I believe Intel is running into limits of their core architecture and 14nm, where the competition with the excellent Ryzen series has them pushing models that are beginning to see diminished returns at every level, performance, value, and power.
However, given Ryzen overclocking so far with 1xxx/2xxx Zen/Zen+, I think it's possible that we may see similar challenges there. The big advantage AMD has here is that a new TSMC process may alleviate that successfully.