But Intel 10nm and everyone elses's 7nm are roughly the same. So saying "already have 7nm out" is misleading. It makes it seem like Intel is a gen behind, when they are really just late on the same gen.
These nanometer terms are largely marketing now.
I hear this stuff all the time, that Intel's processes are better than TSMC/Samsung/GloFo processes with the same "nanometer" rating. But I'm not at all convinced that it is true. If it was, then you'd expect Intel's 14nm CPUs to be denser than 14nm Ryzen CPUs, and to have noticeably better performance per watt. But neither of these is true. Intel
no longer publishes die sizes and transistor counts, which is a warning sign in and of itself (they used to readily do so).
This comparison indicates that AMD has the edge in terms of cores by die area, at least on HEDT. Cherry-picked numbers published by Intel regarding SRAM density have little relevance if they don't translate into a real-world advantage in CPU density. As for performance per watt, Ryzen stacks up quite well to Coffee Lake, especially in multi-threaded benchmarks.
One area where Intel does seem to have an advantage over AMD is in terms of maximum clock speed. It's not clear to what extent that is due to process, and to what extent it is due to architecture. Ryzen is currently being fabbed on a GloFo 14LPP process, which is optimized for mobile applications; TSMC has high-performance processes available, which will probably provide better clocks when AMD switches to that process for 7nm. If Pinnacle Ridge were currently being fabbed on TSMC 16FF+ instead of GloFo, it's entirely possible it could clock nearly as high as Coffee Lake, so it's not clear that foundry processes are inferior to Intel processes with the same "nanometer" rating in any way.