In computer chips, in practice TDP = Power use. It's especially true on a thermally constrained setup like a laptop or an ultrabook. Heat may not equal energy use in most other scenarios, but for chips its pretty much the same.
Of course the confusion stems from the fact that different chips tend to peak with different code. It leads to a lot of unnecessary arguments because people from either side can cherry-pick to favor their arguments.
Intel's Datasheets say while TDP can be exceeded for a short amount of time, it must average down to TDP levels over a longer period of time. If Intel is breaking their own datasheets, and average long term chip TDP is lower than datasheet TDP, then they are leaving performance on the table. If chip TDP is higher than datasheet rated TDP, then the system will run into thermal issues and manufacturers will complain, and users will get headaches.
AMD chips must function the same way, otherwise the idea of Turbo doesn't work. You can Turbo beyond TDP for a short amount of time, but eventually it has to come back down so it doesn't exceed heatsink requirements.
Of course, that assumes manufacturers Intel/AMD follow their own datasheet. In some cases, they don't. But that's just bad management/design. I assume for vast majority of the chips from both manufacturers, TDP rating is same. I repeat, identical.
This further adds to the confusion. Faster running system with the MX150 may mean the rest of the system may be loaded higher. The CPU will need to use more, the RAM will be loaded more, and even the storage subsystem.
In reality, none of that matters. Because you'll be looking at how it performs, how much battery life it has, and how much it costs. Everything boils down to the three.
Facebook
Twitter