At first glance, the core counts appear competitive, but of course, comparing Intel "E cores" to "cores" is not at all fair. The comment made me curious about

At first glance, the core counts appear competitive, but of course, comparing Intel "E cores" to "cores" is not at all fair. The comment made me curious about performance though. Here is an example of the 144 "E"core Sierra Forest matching performance of the 60 core Sapphire Rapids 8490H in the phoronix benchmark suite: https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-xeon-6700e-ampere-altra/6 https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-xeon-6700e-ampere-altr... Sierra Forest does better if perf/watt (or energy consumed per run) is the metric, but still loses to the 64 core Epyc Siena in those same benchmarks. I would guess there are some very efficiently parallel workloads where tons of "E" cores win in performance, but the current Intel CPUs do not seem to be competitive in my non-expert opinion.