It seems like the same strategy would also make sense on Intel processors, although it probably requires at least 4 cores to make sense?
Intel agrees!
You also want them to be low-power even when saturated, otherwise you gain responsiveness from the "performance" cores but your "efficiency" cores aren't actually efficient.
It seems at least Linux's x86_energy_perf_policy tool lets you set multiplier ranges and some performance-vs-power values per-core, which means such a setup doesn't seem impossible on current Intel hardware.
As an example, a while back I ran a multi-threaded process on a shared work server with 24 cores. It used zero I/O and almost no RAM, but had to spend a couple of days with 24 threads to get the result. I ran it inside "chrt -i", which makes Linux only run it when there is absolutely nothing else it could do. I had someone email and complain about how I was hogging the server, because something like 90% of the CPU time was being spent on my process. That's because their processes spent 90% of their time waiting for disc/network. My process had zero impact on theirs, but it took some explaining.