If it's FUD then it's been going on for over a decade. Back when Intel was ahead, people would say things like "Intel is first to 32 nm and has a better process than other fabs. So TSMC/GloFo/etc. won't catch up until they hit 28 nm, at which point Intel will hit 22 nm."
But it makes little sense, Intel fabs were not even in competition with TSMC and GloFo, they don't sell their fab capacity.
Apple/Nvidia/AMD/etc buy fab capacity, they understand the differences on a node per node across the various providers. They then manufacture a semi conductor product that has many other factors beyond the process node which others buy, such as consumers/data centers/car manufacturer/etc. Knowing the processing node makes little sense in the buying decision of the latter.
The lines for evaluating the end product are even more blurry once we get into chiplet or big.LITTLE design, both of which mix processing nodes to a lesser or greater degree respectively. Once we actually get to products the overall package needs to be evaluated not the processing node.
There is a "fabless" division of Intel that uses their fab to do designs for third parties. You won't hear much about it because a) it's for relatively niche stuff and b) it's historically very uncompetitive in terms of IP offering and schedules. So nobody uses it. Every so often they try and re-invent it, a few years backs they were pitching the Altera aquistion as a benefit but so far it's remained uninteresting. Being able to offer capacity might change things for some prospective customers.
But AMD compete with intel, and consumers might look at nm size when comparing mainstream processors to buy, because at one point it was a good indication of how recent the processor was, and thus how fast / power efficient / ...
Not that I'm not talking about educated consumers, which will look at other variables, but rather the consumers who will buy a computer and want the cutting edge, without knowing too much details.
But they really don't, if you jump on a LTT, gamers nexus, or any tech review it will be full of benchmarks both real and synthetic, the process now might be mentioned but it's hardly the main selling point.
Intel have been happily enjoying huge market share on 14nm for the better part of a decade after all.
These “other” variables do depend on process mode, so TSMC and Intel processes are in competition via the Performance/cost/energy-consumption of the chips they produce.
But the process now does not actually reflect what trade-offs the manufacturing is going to make in the architectural choices.
I really feel this is so relevant now only because Intel's 10nm has become such a black mark. Everyone talks about the problems and that's what might be bleeding through into the consumer conciousness.
