Yes it does, CML-U clocks are way up versus ICL-U.
You're trying to make an obtuse explanation for something people already know.
You are comparing two different process nodes, one of which is significantly denser than the other. What you may or may not know is Intel's 14nm process for Skylake was MORE dense than the 14nm++ process used by coffee lake and likely comet lake CPUs.
So, although the clocks are higher, it is using an older uarch, it is using a less dense process, etc. That doesn't make one better or worse, rather it makes it different. That is why you must not just look at frequency or IPC, rather holistic performance, although the others are not trivial either.
You are in a circular reasonning where you think that you can harvest one thing several times..
If it s tested at 15W it means that the IPC advantage is accounted, by running them at same frequency you ll have a chip that consume more than the other, namely the one with higher IPC, you can then downclock the one with higher IPC such that it consume the same and it will still provide better throughput due to frequency being downclocked by a smaller amount than the IPC difference.
Once all is made you can compare the chips at equal power, wich is the only metric that matter, or should we compare them at different powers, that is at, same frequency.?.
Really, i wonder the lengths some people are going through once the numbers do not reflect their hopes..
This shows a lack of understanding. TDP is NOT IPC. Limiting the amount of power, which IPC has a specific definition not related to the heat disipation and Intel made the term TDP worthless in regards to their products, that does NOT bake in the IPC advantage, nor does comparing equivalent TDP processors give any notion of the IPC of said processors. You test IPC in a SPECIFIC WAY. That means controlling the frequency. You can try to control memory for bandwidth and latency as well. You cannot control for the cache variance, so that gets baked into the IPC. You can try to control for the instructions sets used.
IPC isn't about power consumption. It never has been. It is what its name suggests: INSTRUCTIONS PER CYCLE. It has nothing to do with TDP or how much energy it takes to do the task.
You are talking about matching power consumption and comparing performance, which is NOT IPC! That is a different metric of performance per watt. Although you may prefer that metric, it is NOT IPC!
Also, did you read my prior posts attacking this chip in other ways?