Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewmunsell | Hacker News Reader

But separating the background work doesn't actually require efficiency cores. With 40 performance cores, you could still dedicate 4 or 8 of them to "background" processes only. As that article you linked shows, the background processes would simply complete more quickly without affecting interactive work on the machine.

View on HN

Consuming 1/10 as much power would also have thermal advantages for the die overall, and segregating them onto a separate L2 cache from the performance cores would help with that cache friendliness situation, different allocations of logic units means you can tailor them toward different kinds of workloads. . . I'm no CPU designer, so I really can't speak with authority here, but I can at least see several possible reasons why it would make sense even when you aren't worried about battery life.

performance cores are physically larger than the efficiency ones, by about 3-4x. I'm sure there are other tradeoffs cache size like too. So would you rather have 32 performance cores and 8 efficiency or 34 performance?

In upper end extreme case, using 8 HE Core instead of 8 HP Core saves you 24 to 32W. Those 32W could allow more GPU usage or some other part of system such as ISP or NPU.

At the end of the day you will still need HE Core, they just aren't as important comparing to a Battery devices.

Not to mention Marketing, Die Size cost consideration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com