Personally, when I first got access to an Epyc, I was underwhelmed by the performance. For numerical performance it was slightly worse than M2 or cheap old Intel processors. I'm now a bit skeptical of reviews.
Should have insisted on a Framework, by the sounds of it, it would actually have at least not worse battery life.
There might be valid comparisons for specific Epyc generations and their Xeon counterparts. But processors are a bit like car engines. Power and torque numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
Datacenter processors are optimized for different scenarios. Use the wrong processor for the wrong job, and you get abysmal performance. We have an AMD system which won't win any speed records, but that thing has enormous number of memory channels and PCIe lanes, so it's basically a semi with an extra long trailer.
Fittingly, that processor lives in a storage cluster and delivers tremendous amount of I/O both in IOPS and throughput. Same processor would look silly in a compute cluster, though.
Maybe this is Intel's new marketing strategy. Astroturfing has been around for decades now; Microsoft was doing it in the early 2000s.
Or you could back up your claim with actual data.
Why would that be particularly relevant when comparing the performance of specific individual chips?