It was buried at the very end of the article because it's not complimentary to Intel, but the TDP of this part is 150 W. So despite half the cores being the all-but-useless "E" variety, it's going to dissipate 45 W more than a 5950X when flat out. TDP does not measure power dissipation at a given fixed performance level but it does provide a reasonable estimate of power dissipation when a processor is working flat out. To be 43% worse than your competitor despite crippling half your cores is shameful.
For an even more disgusting comparison, AMD's previous-generation 7452 (a midrange data centre processor) was released 3 years ago and has 32 (identical) cores with 146 MB of cache, along with 128 lanes of PCIe4, 8 memory channels, and all the logic that's in the external "chipset" on a desktop CPU, with a TDP of 155 W.
Another way to think about it is that the extra 45 W could power an additional R5700GE to provide those 8 "E" cores plus graphics and you'd still have 10 W left in your power budget. In other words, in the same power envelope, Intel are 8 performance cores and 10 W behind AMD, even assuming their cores could deliver the same performance (narrator: they can't). Ouch.
Despite all that, the reference to battery life seems misplaced here. The processor Intel announced is for desktop use, not mobile, as are the AMD 5800X3D and 5950X. While there are laptops made with desktop processors, they are rare and are assumed to be used at a power point most of the time. Even those invariably use nothing bigger than a 65 W APU. For comparison, processors intended for laptops typically have TDPs of 20-35 W, some even lower; the 45-50 W range are marketed as "desktop replacement" or "mobile workstation" parts, though of course they are still far less capable than even a bottom-end desktop CPU of the same microarchitecture and process. Suffice it to say, if you're in the market for anything being discussed here, it's not expected that it'll be running on a battery or touching your skin.