R0H1T Intel's fabs were supposed to 5 years ahead of everyone, according to their initial road-maps. Though tbf Intel's 10nm & 7nm are ahead of TSMC & Samsung nodes by a fair margin.

Pretty sure TSMC is gonna beat 7nm Intel to the market.

Never gonna happen, there's this thing called pride & hubris which Intel's full of. They derided ARM/big little, AMD/glue et al & look where they are now - copying their competition!

I'm not sure what's that supposed to mean :wtf:

And for many years, when Intel was the only party doing advanced CPUs, that might have been true. Not because of Intel's greatness. Semiconductor and processor technology is not limited by some corporations' R&D. What you can buy today is basically what our civilization is capable of at given moment.GPUs and ARM were few years behind on tech, because they didn't need to be on the edge. They kept using well known, cheaper fab node that has been around for longer.ARM: because no one knew how to use its potential.GPUs: because they were used for gaming and no one cared. I mean: we had some GPUs that gave us some fps in some games. No benchmark. We really didn't know if that's the limit of this tech.But then Nvidia started improving performance by 20% yearly. With CPUs we're getting ~5% yearly because of tech limits. This means gaming GPUs were many years behind.Maybe they will, maybe they won't. It's not that important. Intel is making their own CPUs, so they aren't competing with TSMC.Intel did make a 10nm product as a showcase (a tiny CPU for laptops) before TSMC launched 7nm. They have the tech. It just wasn't profitable.I don't see this "copying". MCM is a very old idea, which both Intel and AMD (among many other companies) utilized over the years.Now, what Intel does in marketing (calling competition's product "glued") is something totally separate from what they do in engineering. It's better to make marketing mistakes and good products than other way around.And MCM is a huge compromise - something that should be seen as the last resort. So yes, Intel tries to avoid it at all cost, but at this moment they didn't manage to compete with EPYC without it. When they move to smaller node with good yield, maybe MCM won't be needed anymore.I'm not sure what you meant here (you gave few answers but haven't partitioned my post). The cloud part? I meant exactly what I is written there.Computing will be covered by cloud in 5 years tops. By "covered" I mean: you won't need a high performing PC at all, for any task.Today you still need to do some things locally - gaming being the obvious example. But I'm sure you've noticed we're getting awfully close.And of course cloud will always be priced to compete with intermittent hardware use. So if you game for 2-3h a week, cloud should be cheaper. But if you run a computing node 24/7, hardware will remain the cheaper option.