Hmmm.... what to make of that?
Intel could have made 14 nm a high performance node, but chose to prioritize low power mobile instead?
Are we sure it's not just that 14 nm provided more benefits in the low power range, regardless of what Intel would have liked? I.e. even if they'd chosen to prioritize high performance over low power, the intrinsic properties of 14 nm did not allow that?
Also, more importantly, is this a trend we'll see going forward to 10, 7, 5 nm? I.e. it'll not primarily improve high performance and frequencies? :hmm:
Yes, that is precisely how these things happen.
The engineers develop a product (in this case a process node) within a set of constraints (timeline, cost, etc) while being directed to maximize a set of priorities (higher density, lower leakage, etc.) and what comes out of that is something that reflects the priorities and direction set by the decision makers within management.
What I think you are mistakenly doing is assuming that there is such a thing as "intrinsic properties of 14 nm". The intrinsic properties certainly do exist, but they exist by intentional creation by the engineers themselves.
As a baker, when I bake pumpkin pie the final product (the pumpkin pie) is most certainly going to have the intrinsic property of pumpkin. Not by virtue of it being a pumpkin pie, but by virtue of me (the baker) intentionally putting pumpkin into the pie when I created it.
10nm and subsequent nodes will continue to target whatever electrical properties Intel's decision makers feel the market is most willing to pay for.
When Apple reports to its shareholders that the market was willing to enrich Apple with $18B of profits in just one business quarter, that is a compelling reason for Intel to pursue similar markets.
No business right now is standing in front of their shareholders telling them they just banked $18B profit in 90 days by selling high-clockspeed desktop CPUs. So why would they make it a priority when there are clearly much more profitable markets to go after?