Intel Debuts Meteor Lake Die, 'Intel 4' Node: 20% Higher Clocks at Same Power, 2X Area Scaling

Intel announced the first details of its 'Intel 4' process node and shared an image of a Meteor Lake compute die at the 2022 IEEE VLSI Symposium. Intel claims impressive results with its new 'Intel 4' node over its previous-gen 'Intel 7' node, including 21.5% higher frequencies at the same power, or a 40% power reduction at the same frequency. Intel also claims a 2X area scaling improvement, meaning it has doubled transistor density for the high-performance libraries. The Intel 4 node is also the company's first to use EUV lithography. That's just to name a few among many other notable advancements that we'll cover in more detail below.

Intel's missteps with the 10nm process saw it lose its process tech leadership to TSMC, not to mention cede performance leadership to AMD in the CPU market. As such, all eyes are on the company as its 'Intel 4' process, which we'll refer to as 'I4,' comes to market in 2023.

Intel tried to scale too aggressively with its 10nm node to reach a 2.7X scaling goal. That led to constant delays due to the simultaneous incorporation of multiple new technologies, some of which obviously didn't meet development targets. For I4 and beyond, intel is taking a more modular approach and introducing newer technologies step by step as it progresses to each node, thus delivering a more gradual cadence that it hopes will avoid the delays we've seen in the past.

Intel is developing multiple nodes in parallel to deliver on its promise of five nodes in four years, and I4 is the second step in that journey. First, let's take a closer look at the Meteor Lake die, then dive into the details of the I4 presentation. 

Intel Meteor Lake Die Shot

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • dehjomz
    Thanks for the write up! After many years of delays, intel will soon use EUV in high volume manufacturing. Looking forward to volume ramp of this node and to final core counts of meteor lake mobile and desktop products.
    Reply
  • Jimbojan
    With Meteor Lake, Intel will have a better power efficiency than AMD for the first time in a few years mainly because it is Intel4 line width, which is ahead of TSMC 5nm, where AMD will be using, in addition to better compute performance.
    Reply
  • jeremyj_83
    Jimbojan said:
    With Meteor Lake, Intel will have a better power efficiency than AMD for the first time in a few years mainly because it is Intel4 line width, which is ahead of TSMC 5nm, where AMD will be using, in addition to better compute performance.
    Making this claim with no products out is not possible. Not to mention the fact that Core hasn't been power efficient for over 5 years.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    jeremyj_83 said:
    Making this claim with no products out is not possible. Not to mention the fact that Core hasn't been power efficient for over 5 years.
    Alder Lake is capable of being more power efficient than Zen3. It depends on the application.

    Put down your pitchforks: Intel’s 12th-gen CPUs aren’t power hogs
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    spongiemaster said:
    Alder Lake is capable of being more power efficient than Zen3. It depends on the application.

    Put down your pitchforks: Intel’s 12th-gen CPUs aren’t power hogs
    Server begs to differ.

    EDIT: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16778/amd-epyc-milan-review-part-2/7
    And that's not even Milan-X.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • PCWarrior
    -Fran- said:
    Server begs to differ.

    EDIT: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16778/amd-epyc-milan-review-part-2/7
    And that's not even Milan-X.

    Regards.
    You do realise that you are comparing Milan (Zen 3) against Icelake (Sunny Cove) and not Alderlake (Golden Cove) right? And what exactly did you link there? It is not an efficiency chart involving power in any way. All I see is that the EPYC7763 has a lower per thread performance that the Xeon 8380. And the cpus higher in the chart are much lower core-count cpus running at much higher all-core clocks. In any case all these, alone, are not relevant to power/energy efficiency. You need a chart to show power consumption and time to complete a task for that. Also, if you really want to compare apples to apples in terms of efficiency you have to compare cpus of equal core count. Because a higher core count cpu can achieve the same or even higher throughput by running at significantly lower frequencies and thus have significantly lower per core power consumption. Even with the same architecture an 8-core cpu running all cores at 4.8GHz will consume way more power than a 16-core cpu running all cores at 2.4GHz (even if they both complete the task at the same time). That’s because power consumption increases fairly linearly with core count whereas (after a certain frequency) it increases non-linearly (exponentially) with frequency. And, by the way, in idle power comparisons Intel wins comfortably for several generations now (both in equal and non-equal core count comparisons). Especially now with Alderlake and the use of e-cores it is not even close.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    PCWarrior said:
    You do realise that you are comparing Milan (Zen 3) against Icelake (Sunny Cove) and not Alderlake (Golden Cove) right? And what exactly did you link there? It is not an efficiency chart involving power in any way. All I see is that the EPYC7763 has a lower per thread performance that the Xeon 8380. And the cpus higher in the chart are much lower core-count cpus running at much higher all-core clocks. In any case all these, alone, are not relevant to power/energy efficiency. You need a chart to show power consumption and time to complete a task for that. Also, if you really want to compare apples to apples in terms of efficiency you have to compare cpus of equal core count. Because a higher core count cpu can achieve the same or even higher throughput by running at significantly lower frequencies and thus have significantly lower per core power consumption. Even with the same architecture an 8-core cpu running all cores at 4.8GHz will consume way more power than a 16-core cpu running all cores at 2.4GHz (even if they both complete the task at the same time). That’s because power consumption increases fairly linearly with core count whereas (after a certain frequency) it increases non-linearly (exponentially) with frequency. And, by the way, in idle power comparisons Intel wins comfortably for several generations now (both in equal and non-equal core count comparisons). Especially now with Alderlake and the use of e-cores it is not even close.
    That's pretty much all there is to compare against Intel since they're just not producing proper new server CPUs. They'll be releasing something now, aren't they? And that will be competing with Milan-X and whatever is based off Zen4 now. I can't remember all the names TBH, so sorry for not being super specific.

    As for your other points. Who cares about just single performance in servers when you're loading, on average, half the cores on any given workload? Have you monitored server loads at any point in your life? If you have IDLE servers then you should fire whoever handles infrastructure; that's a waste of money. Only exception would be "warm" backups. Everything else "cold" and/or mirrored. IDLE consumption while important for mostly everything, I would not say in servers AMD is not competitive.

    Also, I think it's a lesser issue in consumer. I mean, if people can justify the 240W+ consumption of the 12900K at full bore, saying "but the idle power!" is just funny. If you're not using the PC, turn it off. At any other given task, they're close enough to not being an issue and I agree. My point is Enterprise where those overall differences matter and AMD is just better than Intel; sorry you can't see it, but that's just how it is.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • setx
    Idle power consumption tells absolutely nothing about cores. Because cores at idle consume almost 0. Package consumption is L3 and memory/PCI-E/other controllers.
    Reply
  • jeremyj_83
    spongiemaster said:
    Alder Lake is capable of being more power efficient than Zen3. It depends on the application.

    Put down your pitchforks: Intel’s 12th-gen CPUs aren’t power hogs
    Best case I've seen for Alder Lake, 12900k, is when it was limited to 125W. Compared to the 5950X it was still less efficient even though it was limited in power.
    Reply
  • JWNoctis
    Couldn't wait until someone chirps in and reiterate how competition is good, and how Zen 3 was price-gouged unobtainium when the best Intel had was Comet Lake. Not that it's untrue, though!

    Could remember reading somewhere - sometime in early 2000s, I think - that researchers did not expect much scaling below 90nm. Now there's 5nm node or thereabouts in production, depending on specific marketing terms.

    Don't think there'd be much A vs. I arguments left, if 90nm had really turned out to be the practical limit.
    Reply