Depends how technical and rigorous you want to be. It depends on what do you mean by power consumption. And it depends on whose TDP definition we are talking about. Yeah... turns out that when we turn to the real world even the simplest physical concepts (like heat and power) require substantial nitpicking and attention to details. And neither AMD nor Intel found it necessary to rise to that level or rigor when it comes to publicly communicated definition of "TDP". And much of the confusion around "TDP" stems from the fact that AMD's and Intel's TDP definition themselves are not particularly well badly defined. Honestly its a relief that finally someone has caught up with this (@Fox2232 in this case), and that I am not alone trying to explain that in first approximation and for 99% of our discussion needs, that indeed TDP = power consumption, and that that is the only way to make the term useful and relevant. The reason being, again, that if you want to be technical and precise, you'll turn out to be too clever for your own good, because there are multiple definitions to begin with, both bad, and you'll end up with useless physical term. If you want to know more, this is a good article, albeit with some glaring mistakes PS Yes Intel is worse when it comes to TDP and its usability because they are talking about base clocks(pffftt), and AMD's tdp is more representative of the real world power. From the technical standpoint I'd argue that AMD's definition is even worse than Intel's.