I am still not convinced by the arguments deriding processors that produce high temperatures.
Inefficiency - sure, it's not the preferred option, but if I get a Lambo, I don't care much that it guzzles gas.
Needing other components to be more expensive? If I'm buying an expensive processor I don't intend to skimp with cheaper components elsewhere anyway.
The power draw is not really going to be higher than processors in past 'eras' were either, from what I can see.
At the end of the day, plenty of us are overclocking our processors anyway, introducing inefficiency and costs to satisfy the same desire of better performance.
I accept that it's not 'impressive' in technological terms, but in practical terms, that may not matter. If I can take the performance crown in its price bracket, that's progress.
This is very simple. It's very unlike that Intel could reach same clock speeds with 10nm manufacturing tech that they are able to do with 14nm++++++++++++++. What's the point making CPU's with newer manufacturing tech if it means slower processors? Main reason for that is, fanfare, lower power consumption!
Overclockers are around 0.01% of total market. No, Intel won't make CPU's for overclockers. It's just that Intel's process is very hot but it also could achieve high clock speeds. It may be good for niche scenarios like overclocking but for majority it's just obsolete technology.