In the past AMD's TDP used to denote the maximum power/wattage of the processor, in other words power consumption. At those times, AMD had the lead in lower power consumption numbers for their processors. Thus AMD's TDP equals power consumption, in those era and many today still assume it was. Also at those times AMD's TDP is not the same Intel's TDP.

Nowadays AMD's TDP rating is more like Intel's TDP and even worse (because AMD deceptively marketed as such). Nowadays Intel's TDP figures are very close to the actual numbers seen in the reviews. Intel's TDP were more conservative, actual wattage can be much lower than the TDP specifications (in contrast AMD's actual wattage can be much higher than its TDP specifications).

Those numbers in my earlier reply does not include the idle power of the processor itself. Those are system power and subtracting the idle system power (which includes the power consumption of other hardware connected to the processor such as the motherboard), we get the difference on load only. To get actual total wattage of the processor, have to add back the actual idle power of the processor. Fortunately one review measured the CPU power at the 4/8-pin ATX CPU connector: techPowerUp - AMD FX-8350 - "Piledriver" for AMD Socket AM3+ - Power Consumption . Total power on load is 136W for processor only, which is way more than 125W.

Now do you see the problem? Why there were an uproar about failed MOSFETs on low budget AMD motherboards (usually with 4-phase VRM) supposedly able to handle 125W processors? Only those higher end (more expensive) motherboards with at least 8-phase VRM will be able to handle the new FX processors.