I appreciate that you took the time to take a deeper look at this. The five titles that you mentioned seem to hint at the nuance necessary for a reader to inter

I appreciate that you took the time to take a deeper look at this. The five titles that you mentioned seem to hint at the nuance necessary for a reader to interpret them. But the title in question though, just doesn't. "The best" is an overwhelmingly positive description for something that is only a marginal improvement. Does that mean the article is influenced by a PR effort on the part of Intel? Not necessarily. (Admittedly I should've clarified that.) But as a journalist, it is your responsibility to put things into perspective for your audience. If a monopolistic market leader is moving at snail speed while holding the market back, it is your job to make that fact clear for your audience. Don't get them excited about a tiny improvement. Get them disappointed by it. Compare these tiny gains with what could've been if such and such experimental technology was industrialised. I suppose the enthusiast segment of the market would be receptive to such information, and they'd be less happy with throwing money every year at incremental products and demand something more.