Yes, the life is the same. You can see further examples of this, look at long filament decorative lamps like the sort used to light sheet music and paintings and such, they are even lower efficiency than standard lamps because the filament is stretched out so long.
The thing I think you and some on those other threads are overlooking is that light output is not dependent on filament heat output, but on filament *temperature*. A standard lamp filament runs at 2700K and the hotter it is, the more the output shifts toward visible light and the more efficient it is but the more rapidly it burns out. Anything that draws heat away from the filament will require more energy input to maintain the same temperature, and if you can keep the heat in the filament then it will require less input energy for the same light output. Indeed there are high efficiency incandescent lamps which employ an IR reflective coating on the inside of the capsule to direct heat back at a precisely positioned filament and those lamps managed about 800 lumens output from only 40W electrical input. A similar thing applies with your house, the better insulated it is, the less energy you will have to consume to maintain the temperature. If you could completely eliminate heat losses from convection, radiation, and conduction through the lead in wires and supports, an incandescent lamp could be 100% efficient but in the real world of course this is impossible. You cannot reflect anywhere near 100% of the IR back at the filament nor can you have a filament that is not connected to metal wires or supported by something.
Most lamps are filled with an inert gas rather than a vacuum. The increased pressure inside a gas filled lamp reduces the rate of tungsten evaporation of the filament but increases convective losses. Below about 40 watts or so the convective losses start to get too significant so vacuum fill is used instead in order to keep the efficiency reasonable.
For LED lamps the input voltage makes no real difference, a buck converter can be made to operate efficiently at any line voltage.
Thanks, that is a very nice answer.

I see. There use to be a lot of those 'novelty', long tube/filament bulbs, in the UK. In places like shaving/mirror lights, picture frame lights and other similar uses. It had never dawned on me, that there was a reasonable quantity of electricity (watts, not huge, maybe 15W, but big, compared to the relatively small light output), going into it, and yet very little actual useful light coming out.
But now you mention it, that makes lots of sense.
It reminds me a lot about soldering irons, especially from quite a while back (before temperature control was common place). The actual wattage, didn't necessarily tell you its temperature, because if it was an old style, massive type, hence with huge heat losses, it still didn't get that hot, but enough to melt solder. Where as, a tiny, low mass, fine tipped, hence little heat losses, relatively low wattage soldering iron, perhaps 15 watts, can get quite usefully hot.
So of course (completely obvious, now you have persistently mentioned it, i.e. hindsight). Any bulb, which instead of having an optimally small compact filament, that simply turns the (perhaps 60 watts, like we mentioned earlier), because of it being 120V AC mains supply in that country, can have the best/maximum efficiency level. I.e. biggest lumens per watt, just like you have been, repeatedly saying.
But, anything that worsens that scenario, such as 240V AC mains countries (as you said, it needs a thinner and longer filament, to cope with the higher voltage), big long decorative filaments, poorly designed light bulbs, long life ones, etc. Need much more heat, just to make a much lower amount of actual usable light output.
Hence the lumens per watt (efficiency), is significantly worse.
Pity they couldn't have invented some kind of thermos flask like glass tube, that goes round the filament, which both highly insulates the filament, and reflects the non-visible IR (heat) radiation, back onto the filament, to make it considerably more efficient. Which is what (or similar to), what you mentioned in the quote above, but with a possibly different design.
I suppose, even the LEDs may one day become obsolete. Replaced by who knows what. Maybe some kind of semi-conductor material, which with almost 100% efficiency, converts all electrical power, into light, within the visible ranges that are desired (100% CRI, or whatever the terminology is).
Or perhaps, almost 100% efficient LEDs, will become that technology.
Hopefully one day, fusion (power, or whatever is needed) will be invented, practicable, economically viable, and then made available, to help keep planet Earth going, without it getting into difficulties, such as very bad weather, and other effects of climate change.
EDIT: Made this post a little more accurate/better, slightly/moderately. But basically as it was.