What would be the purpose? If you want to purposefully limit power you're forcing the chip to underperform. You can just get the lower cost chip that does run at that power. For example the 5600x being 76W versus the higher chips.
As shown in the anandtech review above, the 7950x limited to 65W (ECO Mode) handily beats the 7600x at (uncapped) 105W, and anecdotally everything that Intel has to offer as of today...
> What would be the purpose? If you want to purposefully limit power you're forcing the chip to underperform
The rationale is that each architecture has a sweet spot consumption/performance, and increasing performance over a certain threshold has increasing costs (AFAIK, one significant factor is the increase of voltage in order to push frequencies higher).
I don't know the numbers, but AMD has been offering the 65W threshold for a while, so it can be reasonably assumed that 65W is the sweet spot performance/consumption.
The reason for not buying directly a cheaper model is the number of cores - one may choose, say, a 65W-throttled CPU with 16 cores over an unthrottled 8-cores (in some scenarios, this can make sense).
In addition to this, you can choose to run your top-of-the-line multi-core processor in eco mode most of the time, and then consciously turn it back to stock settings when you know you'll need the extra speed/throughput, only bearing the extra heat and cost of that performance when you really need it.
Both are very significant limiting factors for non-gaming applications.
Top gaming rigs are the dragsters of computing: no power consumption is too high, no hardware contraption is too large. But most people, and most businesses, don't drive dragsters.
