They are effectively stuck on 14nm. They are unable to produce 10nm chips at scale at an acceptable yield, and the power and performance characteristics are not as good as expected either.

There's a reason the only laptops getting 10nm are low-quantity premium laptops.

> Leaving aside the fact that process size is a marketing term these days

There was a youtube video where the guy used a scanning electron microscope to compare gate sizes between 14nm intel and 7nm AMD and both were basically the exact same size.

The conclusion was that the term is useful only to compare a single companies product line against other offerings in that line (eg comparing Intel's 14nm to Intel's 20nm makes sense but comparing Intel to AMD based on node size is meaningless).

I think you are speaking of der8auer and this video in particular: https://youtu.be/1kQUXpZpLXI?t=716

Yes! That’s the one, thanks. It was a very interesting video.

yes but GP is still correct in general if not in the specifics. Practically speaking they can fit way more transistors on the die which translates to more power for more types of things whether it's M1 or 888.

The i9 from the article is a 14nm "tweaked Skylake" part, i.e. the uarch has been on the market for ~five years.