With how much of a CPU is dynamically gated & power controlled there is a difference between "maximum theoretical draw" and "maximum a 'real world' 100% load" will hit.
This works because server motherboard manufacturers only ever build to that spec and not one iota beyond it for cost reasons.
But yeah... average expected draw is going to be interesting and most manufacturers won't give a number to avoid getting sued.
Of course you also have to consider the cooling capacity of your chassis. 170W in a 1U form factor needs a hell of a lot of airflow to avoid thermal throttling, especially on a dual CPU motherboard. Plus you gotta fit the power supply and everything else in there.
And if you advertise power consumption for those kind of workloads (100% usage) to regular consumers, who are probably gonna buy 1 computer every 3-5 years, you’re disincentivized from optimizing the kind of stuff that have seen real gains, such as designs that aggressively and cheaply turn on/off systems, or clever decisions to run the chip slower than its max output to improve power consumption, without making an impact noticeable by a human user.
All of these factors are variable. You could produce a number that says "the maximum clock the part is capable of, with a perfect cooling solution", but that number would never be reached in anything short of a liquid nitrogen testbench, and thus would be pointless outside of an academic setting. Intel was literally demonized for trying something similar to this two years ago, when they benchmarked a 28 core 5Ghz chip without disclosing that it was overclocked, and hooked up to an industrial water cooler [1].
In reality, this number can be found, but it would be an irrelevant number.
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-28-core-cpu-5ghz,372...