It was because of cooling choices not because of different settings to motherboard, it doesn't matter why Intel came up with it. Now I guess in theory for a moment or two I could see the 2700x using up that much power but I have never heard of a stock setting 2700x using that much power for anything sustained.
Edit: Found the article and it has nothing about the 210w. The power usage there is the system power and it uses between 10-25W more power then a hardlocked 95w CPU system wise, (1)knowing the 370x/470x is less efficient. Ehich is a much more reasonable take on the idea of cooling allow for limited and controlled increases in clockspeed. (2)Intel choose 210w because it basically allowed the CPU to run at max speed all of the time not because 210 is some super number that makes it beat AMD. In actually it caps out at about 140w-180w depending on silicon (which is another reason to hate this practice). The worst is that this practice makes cooler choosing that much more complicated if you don't know better.
1. Please. So the bells and whistles clad $600
MSI MEG Z390 Godlike flagship motherboard is the more energy-efficient motherboard?
2. Except that PL2 is Turbo and should not be sustainable indefinitely. PL2=Unlimited is not an Intel design. The motherboard makers actually did more harm than good in this regard because the 9900k was hitting high voltages under avx load and consuming more power to sustain the multi-core-enhanced turbos in a vicious cycle of power-thermal impasse.
The 210w PL2 recommendation is just a ceiling, and just like the 2700x, the 9900k doesn't get anywhere near that number running non-avx code. Techspot used to publish idle numbers but in this review and beyond, that insightful variable vanished from their charts. The delta between idle and load should be telling for both chips.
WRONG: I just looked it up. the 95 watt version takes 181 watts, and the unlimited takes 249 watts, and the 2700x takes 205 in that review, so its probably total system power, but it takes way less than the unlimited 9900k.
HERE:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1744-core-i9-9900k-round-two/
Edit: that was the blender gooseberry,
the other power graph was about 5 watts lower, but the three were about the same as the other one.
And why is it that every time you post about AMD its tainted or wrong ?
I meant system. You have been wrong also. Case in point, the power consumption number in the Handbrake test is actually higher; it's 209w. If you subtract idle, (fans, ssd, etc) you should be ballpark 160w - 180w. Meanwhile, overclocked to a paltry 4.2GHz, the picture is worse.
So the toasty 210w 9900k monster system draws 255w @ 4.7GHz all core turbo, while the 105w 2700x Cinderella system draws 209w stock, and 264w overclocked to only 4.2GHz.