Ok this is the only method I could find for giving you feedback RE – your consumer desktop processor lineup. As an owner of an i7 920. I feel the need to state you are not giving me a valid reason to upgrade ? transistor count on cpu cores has not be increasing in line with moores law for some time ? you keep on ploughing on with upgrading the iGPU on desktop CPU’s full well knowing that if someone is buying a £200 CPU they are more than likely, spending that much again on a dedicated graphics card, now I’m hearing broadwell will have 128mb dram on the die dedicated for the broadwell iris pro graphics ?! why ? if i wanted to waste die area on an amount of graphics memory equivalent to a 10 year old discrete graphics, i would be nuts ?, again for the desktop user this seems pointless ? unless you going create a processor that negated the need for a full size desktop graphics card entirely ? what is the point of this for the desktop pc user ? the only reason most gamers will use integrated graphics might be whilst setting a machine up before the graphics card is installed ? or running secondary monitors ? or for low -end business machines, well they don’t need to game so iris pro is overkill on them ? it seems – since post sandy bridge – there has been no real improvement to the complexity and power, transistor wise of the cpu cores, yes you made great strides with efficiency, but the transistor count on the cpu cores or number of cores has not increased even with fab nm scale reduction ? Also I’m very much angered by you not providing full Package Specifications on intel ark any longer ? where is the die size spec for the newer processors ? you must have been reducing die size, keeping transistor count the same and thereby increasing margin, it can be the only reason you’ve stopped publicising die size information ? Im no doubt getting less of the wafer than ever if I buy haswell ? but your still not offering a higher transistor count or cores to the midlevel desktop consumer, just because amd is not fully competitive with you in max performance per core terms, is no reason to slacken off on cpu transistor count or performance increase for the end user, if broadwell doesn’t have increased cpu performance or more cores at the mid market level i will not be upgrading again in 2014. It’s a relatively simple formula to persuade me to upgrade ? follow moores law, offer me the same die area off the wafer from 2 years ago at the same price as my last cpu, but offer me double the transistor count and near double the performance at the same price point market wise ? Also what went wrong since sandy bridge the IHS’s ability to dissipate heat is reduced massively since ivy bridge onwards, not full IHS contact soldering anymore ? or is it your 3d energy efficient transistor design that is limiting heat dissipation to the IHS and thereby the overclocking max is now worse than sandy bridge ? all these issues need rectifying before anyone with half a brain will bother to upgrade ? theres too much compromise for the desktop cpu user with you trying to morph your product into an APU or cater to smaller form factors. Also BGA mounted cpu’s should not be pursued, the number of times some electronics dies ps3 xbox 360’s it most often comes down to SM BGA failure, and moving the intel desktop CPU to SM BGA seems a mistake to me in terms of reliability, at the end users expense. If your argument is that the iGPU can be utilised by programs in desktop machines for other than graphics work and boost cpu performance, then Im afraid that largely revolves around people re-writing code to take advantage of it ? and therefore isn’t guarantee-ably offering a cpu performance increase to the end user ? anyway get the formula right, because at the moment your lineup nor the explanation behind your decisions is convincing me to upgrade.

D morgan