CoachAub :
It still boils down to the fact that for their top CPU (mainstream), they should put more effort into the TIM and lid.
And Intel likely did. Except that Intel's priority is reducing costs, not achieving unnecessary low temperatures as far as stock reliability is concerned and higher overclocks when overclocking is not officially supported, merely tolerated.
The main reason Intel ditched soldering is because silicon, indium, copper and the substrate all have vastly different thermal expansion coefficients and that puts all sorts of stresses on the indium solder, die balls and the die itself which can crack any one of them and the bonds in-between. With thermal paste, most of it is eliminated along with the expensive soldering preparation steps and soldering process. The indium layer also needs to be fairly thick to reduce the temperature gradient and the risk that the indium layer or chip corners will crack. How thick is that? From what I read, the ideal thickness is 2mm and an indium layer that thick would perform worse than most generic ZnO pastes. Also, the amount of indium necessary to fill that gap (about 1.5 gram) would cost around $5. Indium isn't cheap.
Why the extra TIM thickness under Intel's pasted-on IHS? I'm guessing because if the paste was only thick enough to fill contact gaps between physical contact points as it is for heatsinks, there would be a risk that forces prying the die away from the IHS during thermal cycling could be sufficient to separate the die from the IHS and draw air in. With a thicker paste layer, the vacuum will slowly draw paste on the periphery in as the surfaces pull apart instead of air. The thicker layer may be more long-term stable at the expense of worse thermal conductivity.