[nolok]

My understanding is that AMD approches the core count for multi thread / single or limited thread task at high frequency challenge in a very different way from Intel.

Intel goes with here are some real beefy cores who can do anything , here are some weaker core who can do only some task.

AMD goes here are half of the cores who can go real fast, here are half core who must remain slower, but everyone can do everything.

In theory, Intel could have better perf if optimized for, while AMD could have better perf with any generic random app out there... As long as the OS has enough hint to put the right app on the right core, and bothers to do it.

[wtallis]

I think it's much less a philosophical difference and much more about what they had lying around. Intel had Atom core designs available to pair up with their desktop cores, and combining them into one chip was clearly a rush job rather than the plan from the start.

On the other hand, AMD only really has their Zen series of cores to use, but they rely more than Intel on automated layout tools so they can more easily port designs to a different fab process or do a second physical layout of the same architecture on the same process.

[ac29]

> Intel goes with here are some real beefy cores who can do anything , here are some weaker core who can do only some task.

This isnt true any more as of Intel's current CPUs (Meteor Lake). Both P and E cores support the same instruction set, including AVX10.