For comparison, one of the workstation AMD EPYC processors uses ~400W under peak load, and would use approximately ~320A peak current. It's only ~30x more current... modern CPUs use an enormous amount of current these days.
We have EPYC chips with ~100 cores at ~200w TDP. So each core is around 2W in the AMD chips. Core voltages are ~1v with modern CPUs. So that's 2A per core.
850k cores at 20kA is very much lower than the AMD chips. Must be massively parallel, lower-performing cores. But it's quite feasible that it needs 20kA.
The CS-2 system on their website specs out at 23kW peak. So all this lines up with each other.
As far as benchmarks and utility of such systems, I am not sure if they've proven it out.
I guess this is a process limitation? i.e, the stuff you would need to make an appropriate step down isn't compatible with the other stuff they need?
1. Process limitations (no high voltage devices, poor analog characteristics, limited resistor choice, etc)
2. The skill set for power device/analog IC design is very different than digital design (and harder to recruit for as the talent base is relatively small).
3. On chip power converters universally suffer from poor inductor quality which trashes your efficiency (thus increasing cooling demands as well).
From a business perspective it would be quite risky and likely not cost effective.
As for skillset, there are a bunch of IP companies with silicon proven designs available. I'm sure they didn't design their SERDES or PLL(s) in-house either.
They also have another design advantage here. I believe they're not IO limited with their bumps.So they can use most of it for power, which is much better than any DC-DC solution.
If we presume the wafer consumes a large percentage of that (say 20kW out of the 24kW max) and that they are feeding the "wafer" with DC at 1v, then they /do/ need to feed in 20,000 amps to deliver 20kW of power at 1v.
So yes, 20kamp is a lot of current, but it is within the "power budget" the device seems to express in its marketing material.