While AMD is somewhat better in this regard, It's really long overdue they created some new standard metric that is actually useful.
To be perfectly frank, no we don't.
People here know what the numbers are.
You are buying a laptop yes? Your decisions will be many, and one of them will be the CPU. The difference between 25W and even 45W CPUs aren't huge nowadays with designs overlapping each other.
If you are not buying a laptop and making this argument then you are just talking about it like we do lots here. Whether its Intel vs. AMD or pure curiosity, the result is the same.
So if the price is right for you, and the portability is ok too, then it doesn't matter what the TDP is as long as the system can cool it enough that long term performance is sustained. The final CPU might end up being a 15W one or a 45W one.
And TDP metric will never go away. Enough data will always exist for us enthusiasts/fanboys/speculators/fanfiction people. If they hide that data then Intel/AMD/Nvidia/etc will be obfuscating the data and we should complain.
So what are we arguing about in the first place?
Honestly I'd even just take the first two. The latter isn't all that useful for mobile at least (as both companies would fly way over sane-looking power values).
I also agree with this. The third isn't needed. Yes some will try but know if you are buying an ultrabook then you won't get everything.
Scratch that. I'm not sure why we need the single core watts either. Possibly the only time it matters is when you are running sustained load on battery. Otherwise it'll very likely be a bursty workload and go to sleep using mW. And single core TDP will be less demanding to thermals than multi-thread workload anyway.