[toast0]

There's a couple wrinkles here. For one, power efficiency varies with temperature, keeping chips cool, increases their efficiency, although you'd need a lot of data to determine if watts spent on cooling were comparable to watts saved by being cool at a given performance level.

The other is Apple chips target a lower clock rate than Intel and AMD do for laptop chips, this is a tradeoff. You get better perf/watt at lower clock rates, and a lower targer design can be smaller[1] and lower power. OTOH, you miss out on the top end of performance for those willing to power and cool the beast. It's a good tradeoff for Apple, who never provided ample cooling for their Intel based laptops, but it's hard to market for Intel and AMD when PC laptop makers do want to sell some devices that can clock to the moon all day if users want it. AMD is expirementing with their compact cores as power efficient cores in some laptop skus, so we'll see something there; Intel is going with the BIG.little approach of less capable little cores, rather than just clock limited little cores.

[1] see AMD's Zen4c which is about half the size as a regular Zen4 for the core+L1+L2, L3 cache footprint remains the same for a given size