Join for quick access. Enter your email below and we'll send confirmation plus sign you up to our newsletter.
By submitting your information, you confirm you are aged 16 or over,
have read our
Privacy Policy
and agree to the
Terms & Conditions. Geographical rules apply.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Join the club
Get full access to premium articles, exclusive features and a growing list of member rewards.
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
Intel expects 14A to be 'within 5%' the performance of TSMC's A14 — conservative forecast clashes with 18A's frequency lead and promised 20% gains
Intel's 14A (1.4nm-class) process technology is expected to deliver performance 'within 5%' of TSMC's A14 (1.4nm-class) production node, Naga Chandrasekaran, the chief technology and operations officer as well as general manager of Intel Foundry, told investment banking firm KeyBanc (via @Alex_Intel_). Given TSMC's track record of delivering steady performance, power, and area (PPA) gains with every new node, this might sound like entirely good news. However, the statement deserves a closer examination.
Delivering 'within 5%' performance is an ambiguous statement that may mean that 14A will be 5% faster than A14, or that 14A will be 5% slower than A14. While 'within 5%' performance compared to the direct rival of the same class may sound like a good competitive position, in recent years Intel's process technologies trailed TSMC's nodes in transistor density and remained competitive in performance or power. This was, to a large degree, attributed to Intel's historic focus on CPU performance, but not necessarily transistor density, as its own fabs have offset additional costs associated with larger dies.
In fact, actual shipping processors suggest Intel's 18A is at least competitive with TSMC's N2 in maximum achievable CPU frequency as Intel's Core Ultra X9 388H 'Panther Lake' can hit 5.10 GHz (at an 80W max turbo power), AMD's EPYC 9586F has the highest single-core clock of 5.0 GHz (at a default 500W CPU power), Apple's A20 Pro can achieve 4.93 GHz, whereas Apple's M6 can hit 4.78 GHz. These numbers should not be converted directly into a statement such as '18A is X% faster than N2,' because the processors use different architectures, voltages, standard-cell libraries, thermal envelopes, and physical implementations. However, they do provide a useful real-world reference point: the available N2 processors do not show a substantial frequency advantage over 18A. If anything, the highest observed CPU frequencies favor Intel's process.
Based on internal estimates, Intel officially states that compared to its already fast 18A, its 14A is expected to provide 15% – 20% higher performance at the same power, or 25% – 35% lower power at the same frequency and transistor count. By contrast, TSMC expects its A14 to be 10% - 15% faster than N2 at the same power, or 25% - 30% lower power at the same clocks and transistor count.
Combining the observed 18A and N2 CPU frequencies of Intel's 18A and TSMC's N2 with Intel's stated 15% – 20% 14A gain and TSMC's assumed 10% – 15% A14 gain would ordinarily suggest a modest 14A performance advantage of A14 even in most conservative scenarios for Intel. Therefore, Intel's new expectation that 14A will be 'within 5%' of A14 is notably less ambitious than one might infer from the company's published process specifications, even though the 'within 5%' statement does not tell us which process Intel expects to lead.
In fact, advantages of Intel's 14A over TSMC's A14 can be calculated using the highest observed 18A and N2 CPU clocks combined with Intel's and TSMC's official iso power performance projections.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
With Intel’s Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD’s EPYC 9586F as the starting points, the official iso-power performance projections imply a 2% – 11.3% potential performance advantage for 14A over A14, depending on the combination of process-performance assumptions.
Using Apple's M6 as the real-world N2 reference, a similar calculation gives Intel 14A a 6.5% – 16.2% implied advantage over TSMC A14. Even the worst possible combination for Intel — 14A achieves only +15% while A14 achieves the full +15% — puts Intel's node well beyond the 'within 5%' estimate given by Naga Chandrasekaran.
It should be clearly noted that our calculations do not predict 14A or A14 CPU frequencies, as we use clocks from current CPU architectures with improvement claims for upcoming process technologies. The calculation is useful primarily for illustrating what the companies' published numbers imply relative to today's products.
Intel's 'within 5%' assessment raises an interesting question: why does Intel expect 14A and A14 to be so close when the companies' published process gains appear to suggest a larger gap? Perhaps Intel's assessment incorporates factors that these simple calculations do not capture. Or perhaps the head of Intel Foundry took a page from his boss Lip-Bu Tan's book and now prefers to underpromise.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
If they over promise and then under deliver some investor could sue them, but if they under promise and over deliver then they are less likely to be sued.
If they over promise and then under deliver some investor could sue them, but if they under promise and over deliver then they are less likely to be sued.
Plus it's better to temper customer expectations by under-promising and over-delivering.
Intel's Naga Chandrasekaran now claims that Intel 14A node will deliver performance 'within 5%' of TSMC's A14 technology, a claim that requires a closer examination.
Intel expects 14A to be 'within 5%' the performance of TSMC's A14 : Read more
Can you make the article a bit more confusing please? I still understood a bit of it....
Also you start with saying that you can't compare directly and immediately go on to compare directly in every possible way......make that make sense to me.
FABs promise PPA compared to their own previous nodes using the same architecture, making endless comparative lists of all the different nodes and all the different architectures is complete nonsense.
usertests said:
Will Intel make their best CPUs with it?
They will make their most profitable ones with it.
Trying to determine a node’s max frequencies by comparing a mobile chip to a data center chip and phone chip is possibly some of the worst speculation I’ve ever seen. None of these are designed for max frequency. All three segments bass theid max frequencies on efficiency curves instead of going for max stable frequency. Also 4nm phone chips are literally 40% below the max frequency of 4nm desktop chips. I’ve never seen such a poorly thought out article.
Notebookcheck reported that the M6 single core at 4.78GHz drew 7-10 watts. And 2 Super and 4 Performance M6 cores at maximum drew 15-25 watts. Highly impressive.
The Apple docs for the M6 Mini, which I've been perusing, show that maximum draw from the mains is 70 Watts. This number only happens where the CPU cores, the 12-core GPU, the Neural Engine, and the unified memory are all simultaneously maxed - which of course is basically impossible.
