3 ms·
I wonder how this interacts with big.Little style architectures, like Intel is moving towards with their E cores
by Rebelgecko 4y ago
I wonder how this interacts with big.Little style architectures, like Intel is moving towards with their E cores
- LoganDark 4y agoI'm still waiting for proper big.LITTLE that isn't just coping. Intel has way too many E-cores -- you shouldn't need that many, but I think most of them would've been P-cores if Intel had die space and thermal efficiency to spare... Apple doesn't have that problem with M1, so they can do crazy things like 10 P-cores + 2 E-cores in a laptop, while Intel is just constantly bleeding E-cores trying to reach high core counts. Even Intel's very highest-tier flagship desktop options still don't have more P-cores than E-cores.
- sgerenser 4y agoNot a big fan of Intel, but it does make some sense for them to use more E cores compared to Apple. My recollection is the perf delta between Intel E cores and P cores is a good bit smaller than on Apple’s M series chips. At the same time, their P cores are much less efficient than Apple’s. So the ideal mix for Intel is going to lean more on the E cores.