Except the 10++nm process listed there is 10SF not ESF (they shifted the names soon after Cannon Lake)
If Alderlake ends up having lower max clock, that's because Skylake has been known by Intel engineers for 6 years while Golden Cove is two generations newer than that.
Clock-wise the lower power consumption of 10nm will also contribute to a potentially higher clock if thermals are the limit. I doubt it but it'll be things other than process that'll determine clocks for Alderlake.
Hardware Unboxed tested TGL H45 and looked at performance with different TDP settings and boost disabled. This is a missing piece of the puzzle which shows that TGL H really likes more power, as increasing TDP towards desktop levels helps TGL catch up in terms of efficiency.
It's almost as if TGL H45 was meant to be TGL-S
View attachment 44675
The graphs are very interesting. Typically processes aim for a steeper graph on the low end that tails off on higher power, which disproportionately benefits low power CPUs. The steeper curve was also pronounced especially with transition to FinFET processes.
I think maybe it's showing that Intel has rejigged their process in a way that's different from their 22nm and 14nm processes.* Since the SF variants are targetting CPUs with high clocks, it makes sense.
At the lower power Tigerlake chips retain the advantages over their 14nm(it should as smaller processes save power due to low capacitance) so they've improved clock/power efficiency at all points.
*One might remember the disappointing clocks of their 22nm Ivy Bridge desktop chip. I've called them out saying they sacrificed their bread and butter PC CPUs to benefit nascent market for them - mobile Atoms. The claims of 37% gain using 22nm happened to apply exactly to the Silvermont Atom chips.
Previously Intel would have only adjusted core and design philosphies. 22nm marked the time when Intel changed their core strength(process) to hope to compete in mobile. It was of course too much for them at that time.
I also believe it was the over-focus on the mobile market that caused the delay to their 14nm and 10nm process. Had they stayed with PC as a focus on 22nm, they might have been in a much better position to keep the lead.
The lesson here is:
You do not bet the farm on something new and of questionable value to you, no matter how much others scream that it's of dire importance. You have to treat it as an extension.