> We actually have a lot of insight in that Intel still doesn't have a good grasp on the problem. Their 10nm was supposed to enter volume production in mid 2018, and they still haven't truly entered volume production today. Additionally Intel announced in July 2020 that their 7nm is delayed by at least a year which means they figured out their node delay problem.

Knowing something happened is not the same as knowing "why" it happened. That's the point of my comment. We don't know why they were not able to achieve volume production on 10 nm earlier.

I'll also add that it's fascinating that both 10 nm and 7 nm are having issues.

My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the development of manufacturing capabilities for any given node is an independent process. It's like building two houses: the construction of the second house isn't dependent on the construction of the first. Likewise, the development of 7 nm isn't dependent on the perfection of 10 nm.

This perhaps suggests that there is a deep institutional problem at Intel, impacting multiple manufacturing processes. That is something more significant that a big manufacturing problem holding up the development of one node.

I think that's not quite right. While it's true that for each node they build different manufacturing lines, generating the required know-how is an iterative/evolutionary process in the same way that process node technology usually builds on the proven tech of the previous node.

SemiAccurate has written a lot about the reasons, for me the essence from that was: complacency, unrealistic goals, they didn't have a plan B in case schedule slips.

I think it's just a difficult problem. Intel is trying to do 10 nm without EUV. TSMC never solved that problem because they switched to EUV at that node size.

Why do they not want to use EUV?

Wild speculations: "newness" budget for 10nm was already used up by other innovations. Or they earmarked all EUV resources for 7nm or 5nm. EUV steppers don't exactly grow on trees.

A key issue is volume. Intel is doing many times less volume than the mobile chipmakers. So intel cant spend as much to solve the problem.

It's a bad strategic position to be in, and I agree with Ben's suggestions as one of the only ways out of it.

The point of my comment is that Intel doesn't know either and that's a bigger problem.

Wasn’t the issue that the whole industry did a joint venture, but Intel decided to go it alone?

I worked at a site (in a unrelated industry) where there was a lot of collaborative semiconductor stuff going on, and the only logo “missing” was Intel.

Didn't Samsung also go it alone, or am I mistaken?

Samsung is the opposite of Intel: gaining market as mobile takes over in the collapse of Intel's former moat. They have more money to solve their problems.