I get what TDP is (generally), I just don't get why you're saying the AMD stuff turns into a 225-275W TDP CPU when OC'd.
By that metric then surely the 4670K is a 130w TDP part when under load at stock?
I just hope more sites come out with more latency stuff for CPUs. What got me interested in the FX 6300 was that the 6350 performed well relative to its rival the i3 3220 in those tests and the only thing I could figure was that it was the mild OC that the 6350 carries. It's a limited number of games there though that TR did, only three. The graphs you tend to post are of older generation titles which the i3 comfortably wins but if TR can do some more with more recent title it'd be interesting to see if they follow the Crysis 3, FC3 trend. It would be nice too as well to see multiplayer benches as you're big into it as you say so it'd be interesting to see how much of a lead, if any, the i3 would have there.
Don't think of me as some sort of AMD nut
as I said I don't really recommend AMD to anyone on here, I just think the 6300 is the one CPU in their range that is worth some sort of consideration.
Were you looking at total system draw rather than actual processor figures?
I can't remember where I found that article that explored the power usage when OC'd but this is the best I could come up with while still "working".
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7
3.4->5.0GHz overclock on IVB brings the total system draw from 161 to 267. That's about 6.625 watts per 100MHz interval.
An OC from 4.0->4.8GHz on the 8350 takes total system draw from 213 to 364! That's 18.875 watts per 100MHz interval. Three times as much.
Now, with some really really rough math that should not even be considered as precise, lets take the TDP of the processor at stock speeds, which is 125. Subtract that from the 213 total system draw, and we have a rough estimate that the rest of the PC is pulling about 88W. Take that 88W figure and subtract it from the load OC draw, and you are left with 276W. That's the rough TDP of the 8350 @ 4.8GHz.
For the Ivy part, calculating the same way the system would be 84W (which in really rough approximation is pretty close to what we were looking at with the 8350, so this math is somewhat okay). Looking at the 5.0GHz OC, that puts us right around 183W for an OC 200MHz higher than the 8350.
That overhead is something that needs to be accounted for in cooling capacity and power supply.
Also, calling games 'last gen' is a bit of a disservice, when game performance is much more about the engine than the game in specific. For example, any game on UE3 is going to show the same sort of results, whether it was released in 2006 or 2010. The numbers will be different, but how the numbers relate to each other will remain constant.
Add to the fact that these benchmarks don't even include multiplayer games, which are even more CPU dependent than just about anything listed in these benches, and it swings even further towards Intel.
I think you have an interesting argument for the FX6300, and I've definitely made my reservations clear (being stuck on an AM3+ socket, for example). Until I can get a 990FX system on my test bench and try out CoD, Dota 2, T:A, and SC2 (the only MP games that I can reliably control variables), almost all of the data out there says the per-thread performance of Intel chips still gives them a nod.
Wanting to point at the games that are extremely GPU dependent due to lack of heavy CPU utilization isn't necessarily an indication of what performance might look like on next gen engines. It's a tenuous connection at best, and something that either one of us should hold off on speculating about.