The new chip has the exact same TDP rating as the old one. Unless Apple has made their thermal solution worse (highly unlikely) it is Intel that is fudging the TDP ratings.
The old chip pulled 33% less than its rated TDP in the real world.
Also, lol if you actually think TDP means anything anymore. Over the last 5 years it's become a marketing number more than anything else. It gives you a vague category of what power consumption will look like... at base clocks, under a non-AVX workload. Modern processors will happily blast past their TDP by 50-100% if there is thermal headroom available.
(And that's where laptops come up short - they can't actually cool a steady-state load, so these laptops will happily turbo themselves into a wall, and then once the heatsink is saturated they'll thermally throttle. Looks great in a 30-second benchmark though!)
> The old chip pulled 33% less than its rated TDP in the real world.
That sounds slightly made up. As you mention yourself chips pull vastly different amounts of power, and put off vastly different amounts of heat depending on workload.
> lol if you actually think TDP means anything anymore
Yes, it does not mean anything because Intel releases CPUs that exceed their ratings because they can't get their process right, which is my whole point.