I've been saying this forever.
1. Intel wants people to think PC gaming is dead so they can justify making poor generation over generation gaming improvements on their CPUs. This lets them go after the much more profitable disposable tablet/phone/laptop market instead.
2. Analysts can't tell the difference between "these new CPUs aren't worth the money as an upgrade" and "people aren't interested in gaming PCs anymore".
3. The entire argument that tablets and phones are killing desktops is a complete causal fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation yet the entire "hardware analyst" press gets a free pass for going "tablet sales up, desktop sales down, I have no evidence for any of this but the tablet sales MUST be replacing desktop sales and theres no other reason why people would be buying tablets and desktop sales would be going down.
4. 3 is usually followed in those types of articles by some sort of horrible, anecdotal evidence along the lines of "omg my daughter bought an iPad (tm) and now they don't even touch my Windows (tm) PC (tm) so that must be why everyone stopped buying PCs~!!!!"
5. Microsoft also has massive incentive to see PC gaming die and have it replaced by Xbox. Most of Windows gaming income goes to companies that aren't Microsoft (like Steam/Valve). On Xbox, Microsoft makes tons of money (remember Microsoft charging 40,000 for an update on TF2?). On a PC, a game update is $40,000 that Microsoft doesn't get to see but could see if the users were on Xbox instead of PC. Do you think it is coincidence that Microsoft forced Metro on PC gamers? They want to give you an interface that works better with a console to try and urge folks to make the change.
To be quite honest, the only major players in PC gaming that want to see PC gaming survive are Nvidia and AMD. Intel has more to gain in other places (like selling chips for laptops like the Macbook that will get thrown away in a year as opposed to the folks on PC who are still gaming fine with 5 year old Nehalem or older). Microsoft can make a ton more money by forcing people to Xbox by charging for updates, taking a cut for game sales, etc. Big game studios have to deal with a lot less piracy and they might even be able to reduce or block used game sales.
On the other hand, for AMD GPUs are their most profitable business, and their CPU marketshare on Steam is significantly higher than it is for their servers or the general populace at at large. Nvidia, obviously, has GPUs as their most profitable market. Steam, of course, will be Steam and they have their own ecosystem which does well.
My hope is some day people will realize that the fanboy fights shouldn't be between Intel/AMD/Nvidia, but against those who want to see PC gaming evolve and who care about our interests against those who neglect us and want to do things we would not like.