Thats what overclocks have been doing for decades and are still doing it today. Not everyone is after performance/watt. Anyway 260W TDP is nothing.... Manually overclocked CPUs uses way more power.
225W was mock-worthy in the FX-9590 days . . and certainly Rocket Lake earned the ridicule it got from its power consumption.
BUT... I don't know . . This 10% increase in clocks, from the i7-12700 to the i9-12900KS, going from 5.0 max to 5.5 max, results in a MTP increase of 70W... so, going from 190W to 250W is a 31.6% increase in power consumption. To get a 10% increase in clock rates.
I don't think that when I overclocked my Pentium 133 to 166Mhz, which is a 25% increase in clocks, that it used anything close to that kind of extra power, proportionally speaking.
confounding me, though, is that it seems like the extra E-cores are contributing the bulk of it, moving from the i7... but that seems strange.
If we look only at the boost rates of the non-KS i9 vs i7, that's a 51W jump, a 26.8% increase in power, for only 200 extra MHz, only a 4% increase in clock speed. BUT . . the i9 has 4 more E-cores.
Now, the 12900KS vs 12900K... like vs like, that's 260 vs 241W, only a 7.8% increase on power draw, for 5.8% increase in clocks. That's actually not bad.
So, now I'm wondering if the big jump in power draw vs the i7 isn't as much from turning up the wick, but from having extra E-cores. It seems kind of counter-intuitive to me, though, I think that @watzupken
's explanation probably covers this.