> maybe Intel just made a bad assumption/went down the wrong path that cost them many years for 10nm That's exactly what happened. They scaled it at over 2x de

> maybe Intel just made a bad assumption/went down the wrong path that cost them many years for 10nm That's exactly what happened. They scaled it at over 2x density (I'm not expert, but apparently it was usual to aim between 30 and 40% increase), being confident that they had such a lead they could go for such an ambitious goal. That failed miserably. That is the "botched" 10nm node that never came to be. The current "10nm+"or "10nm++" process is a sensible fix over that, which should put them on par with TSMCs 7nm (actually slightly ahead, but it´s within 5%, see [0]). But having botched it in the first place made Intel take far longer, and TSMCs not only caught up, but surpassed them. And yes, Intels 7nm node is independent from that (though they say they've learned the lesson from 10nm and have taken safeguard measures should problems with a new node arise again). There's very little information around it, so can't tell much. But if it's on track, it should arrive close to TSMCs 5nm and be a contender to it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#7_nm_process_nodes_and_process_offerings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process#7_nm_process_node...