In that case, shouldn't it have read "Intel's struggles with 10 nm began **before** or **around** 2014"? I still don't understand why it's relevant that "Intel's struggles with 10nm began after 2014".To demonstrate that the lack of EUV was not the sole reason they fell behind TSMC. They were having other manufacturing problems beyond and predating EUV and according to your link may in fact helped cause some of the delay in adopting EUV.
And from what I understand, TSMC used EUV for their 7 nm process, which is approximately equivalent to Intel's 10 nm. If so, that suggests EUV would have faciliated Intel's 10 nm, and thus Intel's struggles with 10 nm aren't inconsistent with the idea that the lack of EUV hampered them, no? I.e., irrespective of whether their original attempt at 10 nm was in bad shape, maybe if they'd switched to an EUV-based approach to 10 nm, they could have achieved a successful 10 nm process, as TMSC was able to do their equivalent (7 nm) node.
I'm not disagreeing with the substance of what you wrote, since I don't know what the substance (i.e., the specifics of Intel's struggles) is supposed to be. I'm just not following the logic. Then again, I am easily confused

Last edited: