Not that anyone ever would hijack an Intel thread for pro AMD posts, but I never hear you call that out.
So you agree that you were taking the thread off-topic then? Glad we have an understanding.
To me, a chip is factory overclocked if a TDP is set and the chip willingly blows through that TDP without changes by the user. Intel chips currently do that. AMD chips do not.
TDP is kind of nebulous though, so it's hard to use that to determine whether or not a chip is "factory overclocked". Power specs are all complicated nowadays. For example, AMD CPUs with a TDP of 105W actually use 142-145W pretty consistently. Does it mean they're "factory overclocked" though? Not necessarily. And I'm not absolutely sure you can say the 9900k or 10900k are "factory overclocked" because they will back off their high power consumption after a certain period of time (the tau period). Chips like the FX9590 were "factory overclocked" because they were specifically binned for high leakage, high clocks, and constantly ran at clockspeeds well outside of the rational points of their voltage/clockspeed curve.
And the FX9590 was a high-clocked carbon-copy of the FX8350. Same die from the same wafers.
The name of the game nowadays is to try to figure out how to opportunistically push CPUs outside of their optimal clockspeed/voltage range when the cooling solution can handle it. Overclockers kept finding OC headroom on chips that were conservatively-clocked to stay within certain power/efficiency specs (look at the 2600x, for example). I don't think we'll ever see "factory overclock" anything anymore. It's more like, for top-bin chips anyway, neither AMD nor Intel want to sell you any headroom. And they're loathe to do so on lower-end parts.