I think "articles" like this are a sign of the times. Looks like EETimes is no longer really editing and is just becoming a low-quality channel for press releases and FUD-talk.
The purpose of having an editorial is to keep the quality and screen out this sort of junk. Without that you're just cashing in a once-valuable brand. When the quality goes down, so will the advertising revenue.
Oh well, once ESD stopped printing this was bound to happen...
Read what I said above. On its own transistor/process technology is not enough these days. ARM and Co. have low power architectures, more efficient software tools, and a much larger ecosystem, which can more than compensate for a loss of 30% in power or speed performance at the transistor level (if proven). Of course, they will always seek to catch up with the latest and best transistor/process technology but that's not all what they are about.
I repeat, system performance is not dictated by transistor/process performance alone. Intel want you to think that way because they are an IDM who want you locked into their way of doing things.
Intel's fins are like varying shape triangles (as pointed out in earlier articles). The leakage variation impact is clearer here:
About TSMC or foundries in general, they will never adopt new technologies unless it is clear customers will go for it. That is why they are not so "self-driven" as Intel or Samsung might be.
That is why you need ARM or Qualcomm to first sign up. Even then, there is general reluctance. What if it is just one customer? Should other customers benefit so easily without putting in so much develop time? Etc.
The Ivy Bridge advantage over Sandy Bridge is not 100% clear:
You mean benefits like 30% less power consumption on average vs 32nm?
I for one, applaud Intel for marketing the technology behind these benefits rather than just telling consumers "It's faster, so buy it"