It’s most likely not emphasized since the resulting product may have the size tolerances, but not the strength of the powdered metal. It’s still quite strong, but the strength is based off the “filler” material (similar to brazed parts), not the powdered metals (which acts more like rebar inside concrete).
I imagine this lack of strength (or lack of integration) of the original powdered material is what holds it (and other similar additive processes) back from being a well recognized PM process.
The other was calcium powdered 3D printed parts that had a chemical forced through their porous mass, changing its chemical composition.
Manufacturing standard spur gears in particular has benefited HUGELY from powder metallurgy. You can use it to make exceptionally accurate and cheap extrudable shapes, and gears have traditionally been hugely expensive and wasteful because you have to cut out the teeth, harden, and final-cut. Powder metallurgy has created an important middle ground- exceptionally cheap medium-quality gears. Now instead of unhardened gears you will always get powder gears, which are better. In places where final-ground gears were overkill, powder gears have come in at acceptable quality and greatly reduced prices. Powder metallurgy is awesome!
Nope, now instead of unhardened gears you get powder gears which are even worse (but much cheaper than those good powder gears), but minimally better than plastic. My father is power tools' serviceman and since sintered gears became more common, there are MUCH more broken transmissions (but yeah, they are a little cheaper).