Comment by GeekyBear

Most likely: Same design, marketed as the same chip. Might see differences in power consumption and thermals but not in a way that will affect normal users. Apple has relatively few designs that they use across different products so that would further mask differences. If the Intel-fabbed variant of a chip ran 5% hotter but Apple put it into Apple TV then basically nobody would notice or care.

> TSMC has proven time and time again it is the only fab capable of producing leading edge nodes at the capacity and quality [...]. It also has substantially deeper pockets than Intel to continue to invest in staying number one.

Before about 2016, you could have said the same about Intel. They were generally considered process technology leaders. They were > a year ahead in shipping products with their latest 14nm node. Similarly their previous 22nm node. There had been several occasions over the previous decades where manufacturers stumbled, not as spectacularly as Intel's decade of malaise, but definitely nodes scrapped level.

So, things can change quite quickly. Intel's 18A node is likely to be "better" than TSMC's current N3x nodes (it is denser and better performing on paper) and will ship before N2, putting Intel momentarily in the lead for process technology again for a quarter or so, and it was first with some technologies like BSPD (TSMC won't do that until A16). Yields are a question, and N2 will be coming out which probably re-takes the lead... but this is quite a turnaround from late 2010s situation, right?

The big thing Intel needs is a working foundry pipeline, because there is so much money in high performance silicon that's not x86 these days. It has always been thought their CPU design teams were very close to fabrication which was thought to be something of an advantage for them. It's likely that has also made their process more difficult for outsiders. They've tried and failed several times to get this going and get external design wins, and just never done well even when their manufacturing was doing really well. Including this latest effort (https://overclock3d.net/news/misc/intel-may-cancel-its-18a-l...). Still, it's not impossible, and I'm sure TSMC considers this one of its biggest risks if Intel can boot a self-sustaining foundry business.

To be fair, Intel is finally making the major manufacturing equipment investments needed to catch up.

They previously did stock buybacks and acquisitions of other companies that went nowhere instead of investing in the EUV manufacturing equipment TSMC used. Now they have the more advanced version of EUV in production.

> Intel has reported processing over 30,000 wafers in a single quarter using High-NA EUV exposure, achieving simplified manufacturing by reducing the required steps for a particular layer from 40 to fewer than 10,

https://www.techpowerup.com/342239/intels-advanced-packaging...

Apple likes to own the core components of the stuff they sell. How surprising would it be for Apple to buy Intel's factories and hire away some of TSMC's top scientists and engineers?

Didn't that "good enough" strategy fail with Global Foundries? They "good enoughed" themselves to irrelevance.