How is Prime 95 relevant to test the FX8350 TDP and irrelevant once we talk of Intel..?
Same way demanding that people use AVX Prime for 240v testing of Intel Haswell's (knowing it will deliberately over-volt
only a Haswell and give up to 50w higher than normal readings) then suddenly switch to "Fritz Chess 12v" load testing for hardware.fr testing of AMD's, whilst ignoring that same hardware.fr methodology readings result in impressively low "61w" i5-4670K's, "55w" i5-2500K, "46w" i5-3570K's, "35w" i3-4340's, etc, which are then promptly forgotten in favor of searching for "less palatable" '110w' Haswell's... And you can "play the same game" there - Take a "110w Haswell", knock off 10% for PSU AC/DC losses - that's suddenly down to 100w. How much does an Intel motherboard, memory chips, HDD's, fans, USB peripherals, idling dGPU, etc, draw under load? If it's 12w or more, then the Intel is also suddenly "within rating". You get the picture...
Of course, the easiest way is to test with realistic apps that load all cores 100% without over-volting either of them (x264, Cinebench, etc). And that's what I posted earlier from several different sites. But then when you do that, those artificially inflated "110w" Intel's numbers drop like a rock to nearer 60-85w (such as
i5-4670K = 52w, i7-4770K = 74w, i7-4790K's = 86w, etc) and some daily Intel bashers suddenly have less to moan about when stuff is actually done "like for like" in a genuinely fair manner that doesn't involve screwing around with over-volting one CPU more than than another "accidentally on purpose", then cynically declaring it "cheating" for being +25% higher than normal as a direct consequence of that overvolt that you could have avoided but chose not to...
That regular softs wont get over the official limit is irrelevant
It's 100% relevant to most normal people who only run regular softs and are not remotely interested in "playing" the figures via one-sided power virus over-volting to try and prove a point.