3. It should be noted though that Intels 7nm will most likely be close to TSMCs 5nm. Regardless they're obviously lagging behind.
No idea how to measure the impact, but I'm sure it's in the tens of billions.
It doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong - it matters because the headline of 7nm vs 5nm sucks for INTC stock.
I think Intel could easily put some marketing language about shifting to an "industry standard measurement practice" or something similar (remember, it's not for techies, but the people who buy INTC stock).
If everyone did, then things like GME would never happen.
Entirely precise yet only partially meaningful, which is just as true of the chase for node bragging rights.
So there's some karmic justice in Intel being pilloried for being behind in this way.
Separately, what you are saying is true -- size is not the be-all-end-all of processor performance. But GP is referring to the dislocation between nomenclature and geometry.
Interestingly, the shift to multi-core on the desktop hasn't been the big problem that a lot of people feared it would be. I remember hobbling on crutches cross-country to SF for an Intel quad core (?) launch and there was a lot of hand-wringing on the topic but mostly things worked out.
This bit Apple too when they boasted of their PPC clock speed, only to fall behind in both clock speed and performance. (I'm a Mac user: this is bipartisan criticism).
I'd say I'm glad those days are over, but of course the deceptive metrics have merely been replaced with different deceptive metrics.