I wouldn't count on it. Intel successes for past 2 decades has everything to do with consumer demand for x86 and effective marketing and really nothing to do with their processes. Core could have been made on same node parity with AMD and the latter would still get demolished in sales.
I don't know how exactly is best to respond to this post because it just seems so oddly out of touch that I can only hazard to guess you were rushed and didn't really have time at the moment to truly do your position justice.
For starters, what percentage of consumers over the past 2 decades would you guestimate have even heard of the term "x86" let alone factored it into their purchasing decision process at any given time when buying a computer?
Secondly, literally every aspect (and this isn't hyperbole, it is simple fact) of the electrical functionality of an integrated circuit comes down to the underlying process technology.
Everything from clockspeed to xtor density to cache latency to power consumption to operating temperature to device reliability and lifetime.
It is true that you can fail to design your chip to take advantage of the innate capability of the electrical parameters of a node, but it doesn't work the other way around.
So to put forth the argument that a CPU would have performed just as well in the market had it been cut-down as needed to fit into the electrical parameter space afforded by an older less sophisticated node is really silly on the face of it.
There was a reason AMD did so well at 90nm with their SOI-enabled process node versus Intel, likewise there is a reason Intel is doing so well now with their 32nm and 22nm nodes that enjoy similar technology advantages at the xtor level.
If all it really took was marketing to accomplish the same then Intel's decision makers would not have gone to all the expense of developing the process nodes they have developed...and Intel's competition would not have gone to all the expense they have gone through in an effort to keep up.
Facebook
Twitter