OK faster GPU but that's not relevant to the argument. You picked up on a red herring to extend this discussion but the appropriate comparison is obvious and fully explained in each of my posts. 25W to 28W is more similar than 15W to 28W, in power and in CPU performance and that's why the comparison is apt. I don't know why you are pushing this but if you want to reply on this point please see my previous posts for answers.
This whole chain started based on your initial post comparing the 1065G7 results to the i7-8559u and concluding: "I'd estimate CPU performance the same, GPU performance 5% better based on the notebookcheck benchmarks, at a 10% lower TDP. Disappointing. They appear to have made very little progress and are covering it up - successfully as news outlets including AnandTech have taken the bait - by comparing the best new IceLakes to mediocre previous-gen processors, not to the best previous Intel processors."
My criticisms: (1) your comparison to a product with edram is simply not representative of the progress made, particularly on the GPU front, (2) the GPU on the i7-8559u has a much higher power budget than the 1065G7 in either 15W or 25W configurations, and (3) you've severely understated the GPU performance differences. As a result, your conclusion is suspect, or, as I said initially "an odd-take".
I do agree that CPU performance between the two when comparing the 25W 1065G7 is pretty close, with each alternating victories in difference workloads. Prime testing of each appears to confirm a ~12% difference in available power as suggested by the TDPs. The 8559u stabilizes at 24.2W (at 2.9 ghz) to processing cores during a prime run while the 1065G7 stabilizes at 21.4W (at 2.5 ghz).
However, as I previously outlined, GPU performance is substantially superior on the 1065G7 and at a much lower power usage. The only GPU tests that show an advantage for the 8559u are ones at very low quality that are likely limited by CPU or benefiting greatly from the edram and Overwatch (seems unusually low and likely represents a driver issue of some sort). Rocket league at 1080p gives between a 6% and 11% advantage to the 1065G7 , SOTR its + 27% to 32%, Witcher 3 is +84% to 94% at the only setting run on both (apparently because the 8559u couldn't even run Witcher 3 at higher settings). Again, this is all where the GPU on 1065G7 appears to be capped at 15W (1.1. ghz, its max rated speed) while the 8559u draws 47% more power (22W) at roughly the same frequency and can burst to ~40W (1.2 ghz).
The difference is basically this: for the 8559u, either the computational cores or the graphics cores can use the full power budget. The 1065G7 is balanced differently. Its computational cores can utilize 25W, but its graphics cores are capped at 15W. Thus, if you're running an entirely computational benchmark on the 1065G7, you're benching a 25W CPU. If you're running an entirely graphics benchmark, you're benching a 15W GPU. For the 8559u its 28W either way. Comparing them solely off of the TDP for the entire chip is simply not providing the whole story.