You seem to have strong opinions about this, while also missing the past decade of desktop and laptop CPU history. Intel based the entire Core line on the arch

You seem to have strong opinions about this, while also missing the past decade of desktop and laptop CPU history. Intel based the entire Core line on the architecture they designed with laptop chips in mind (initially, Pentium M). They found that throwing more power at efficient chips works pretty well. So they switched gears from Netburst. And while you just ignored my comments on Zen, they still apply. AMD designed Zen for efficiency, which allowed it to be excellent in high power, high performance applications, while also being excellent in low power, medium performance applications. While the chips have differences due to being used differently, the core architecture is used from 15W chips all the way up to 125W desktop chips and even 280W workstation chips. It's not impossible that Intel designs completely different architectures for their next laptop chips than what they revealed with Alder Lake, but it's also unlikely, and the point of pairing efficiency cores with performance cores is to allow for flexibility in how they use the architecture. If Alder Lake is really just for 300W workstations, then Intel made a mistake bothering with efficiency cores. What we didn't see today was evidence that Alder Lake is ready for mobile, because these chips are much less efficient when compared to alternatives. How can we expect this architecture to be efficient when you throw less power at it, when it's already proving to be inefficient and requiring lots of power in order to perform?