>What I really want to know, from someone who does know: Is Intel cooked?

I dont know if I count, but at least I wrote about TSMC before most if anyone knew much about TSMC. Which is when Apple brought them to spotlight.

It depends on how you define or count as being able to compete with TSMC?

If Intel technically leapfrog TSMC and their 18nm is better than TSMC 20nm this year but;

It is 30 - 40% more expensive.

It has lower Gross margin, or even negative margin.

It has much lower volume and capacity.

It is slower in ramping up capacity for future capacity planning.

It has limited IP range for its foundry.

It has less packaging options.

It does not have other high speed, low power or analog node options.

At what point does it count as competing? Because right now there isn't a single metric that Intel Foundry is winning. And they are feeling exactly the same as Global Foundry or AMD when Intel Foundry advancement is getting all the oxygens.

And even if they did, with a magic wand got them to compete with TSMC on every single one of the item above, in medium to long term there isn't a single chance Intel could compete with their current board and management.

TSMC leadership and management team is Nvidia's level great. I cant think of any other tech company that could rival them. Their only risk is China.

They don’t really need to be better than TSMC, they need to be one node behind and roughly competitive on price / performance.

The first year of TSMCs latest process goes to Apple. And the second few years are booked completely full. There is room for Intel if they can just get in the ballpark of TSMC.

> If Intel technically leapfrog TSMC and their 18nm is better than TSMC 20nm this year but;

Think you mean 1.8nm, aka 18A. We're way past 18nm and 20nm.

Was Intel's board and management great? Like, when did it change?

There is one metric where they are winning: they are not TSMC.

[dead]