> > > History is not an strong argument. Despite flaweless execution of last years., Intel is now having delay
> > > problems with Broadwell and problems with TSX.
> >
> > History is an incredibly strong guide to the future. I've been
> > hearing "We will catch up with Intel on manufacturing"
> > for 15 years from various competitors. It was bullshit then,
> > and I have yet to hear why it isn't bullshit now.
> > Why is TSMC any more competent today than they were 5 years
> > ago? Do you think Intel is less competent now than
> > they were before? Or do you think that their latest problems will impact the whole industry?
> >
> > My guess is that Intel ran into some nasty issues, and TSMC will hit them sooner or later.
>
> I already said that history is not a strong argument. History can not be used to
> make infallible predictions, otherwise historians would be all rich people.

Why don't you explain why you think this time is different instead? What reasons do you have to believe that TSMC is better than before?

> > Also, TSX is irrelevant to manufacturing, stop making deceptive arguments.
>
> Don't misinterpret me. My mention of TSX was to bring one example of how recent history >couldn't be used
> to predict the problems that Intel has now with TSX. I never said that was relevant to manufacturing.

OK, so history is imperfect - I agree. I still don't hear you explaining why you think that TSMC has somehow improved, or Intel has gotten worse. In the absence of a compelling argument you simply aren't going to convince me (and I doubt you'll convince anyone else) that the process technology gap between Intel and the rest of the world has narrowed. If anything it has widened over time...

David