It's unclear if it can be programmed, the fact that they say it's disabled by default might suggest that it is.
At least, the document/image you posted makes me believe that is the case.
The extreme cooling in overclocking actually drops the power draw to really low levels, the less movement there is from the electrons the easier it is to move them around and make them stay where they have to.
12900k unlimited power 4.9Ghz all core running cinebench at 160W...all you need is a little liquid nitrogen ¯\(ツ)
Well, the answer is a tad more complicated, but not wrong on principle: the closer you're at "superconductor" level, the less resistance, less energy needed to move stuff around. So yeah. That being said, you still do need a lot of power to reach world records. I recall der8auer or Kingpin saying they do work towards 900W for GPUs, also using liquid nitrogen for cooling, so I'd imagine CPUs are not that different. More than likely not 900W, but 300W or even 400W doesn't seem too unrealistic for all-core OC records.
Also! This is relevant from another conversation in another thread/news. Quite interesting findings that agree with the common understanding of most of us here:
It is always nice to see these things against hard data, but at least this time the common intuition/anecdotal evidence aligns perfectly. We're stll perfectly ok with 8-core CPUs for 99% of people and about 100% of gamers. The 6 core CPUs are just a tad less performant (~5% range when loaded), but the different is to minuscule that it's mostly irrelevant. For multiple apps and such, what matters more (at or above 6 cores) is available RAM to just have all that software open. So, 6 core CPUs are perfectly viable and 8 cores (and above) are just for when you know you need the extra CPUs or at least know you will put them to use at some point.