Just to be clear, the discussion about 7nm vs. 10nm is not junk, though it's hard to get concrete sources – WikiChip has some useful data (https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/10_nm_lithography_process)

Basically it seems like Intel kind of over-extended on their 10nm process by trying to introduce a bunch of new techniques, and they had trouble scaling this to volume production. But I think it's generally accepted that the Intel 10nm process and other manufacturers' 7nm processes were broadly equivalent, and it seems unfair to accuse people of being shills for thinking so!

I have seen people supply sources at least twice, frankly I'm amazed given this comes up 5 times per day here that we have to keep explaining it.

Here is one source, again: https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/attachments/content/attachmen...

https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/7544-7nm-5nm-3nm-logi...

These are very nice and detailed feature figures, but I do not see that intel has any advantage from them (possibly my reading comprehension is failing here...). Can you cite a source that clearly shows intel is manufacturing and selling something better than the competing fabs?

they aren't selling anything at the 10nm yet, who knows how it will perform!

but they can fit more on their chips at their process they call 10nm than the others can fit on their chips that they call 7nm.

So it is correct to say that assigning a single size to a node is misleading. There are many dimensions you can measure.

They are selling something on 10nm:

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/269270-intels-first-10...