[fomine3]

More E-core is reasonable for multi threaded application performance. It's efficient for power and die area as the name indicates, so they can implement more E-cores than P-cores for the same power/area budget. It's not suitable for who need many single threaded performance cores like VM server, but I don't know is there any major consumer usage requires such performance.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> but I don't know is there any major consumer usage requires such performance.

Gaming.

There are some games that will benefit from greater single-core performance.

[giantg2]

I can sort of see that. The way I saw it explained as them being much lower clock and having a pretty small shared cache. I could see E cores as being great for running background processes and stuff. All the benchmarks seem to show the AMDs with 2/3rd the cores being around the same performance and with similar power draw. I'm not putting them down. I'm just saying it seems gimmicky to say "look at our 20 core!" with the implicit idea that people will compare that with an AMD 12 core seeing 20>12, but not seeing the other factors like cost and benchmarks.

[philistine]

It's the megahertz wars all over again!

[cyanydeez]

Computers have taught is the rubric of truth: Numbers go Up.