"Intel 4 (7nm) compute tile along with TSMC-manufactured GPU (5nm) and SoC (6nm)"
I'm hoping Tom's and other outlets will start to report this more accurately. Before that day, how long, how many times, how many of us can repeat it: "nm" means nothing anymore. It did represent something physical once. Now it's just an extrapolation, but given how it's often reported, not a helpful one. This isn't about being an Intel fanboy or anything of the sort, just about accuracy.
This is a case-in-point: note the different treatment of Intel and TSMC. With Intel, the process is mentioned (Intel 4) along with what Intel previously called it. But for TSMC, no process is mentioned, just the rather useless nm label. As Intel showed with their density metrics, they renamed their nodes to align better with the rest of the industry. But if you look at the misleading way this continues to be reported--7nm vs. 5nm and 6nm--to the casual reader, it would appear TSMC has the relative process advantage.
My suggestion to remedy this would be simply to use each foundry's process name. There are some important distinctions between different processes--even for those starting with the same number. Using the name rather than the useless "nm" distinguishes it clearly from a no-longer-accurate physical measure and gives readers a term to research further if they want the particulars.