Yeah intel either needs to ensure much better day 1 support for E / P core split or drop it entirely.
People see them as an active negative right now rather than how intel pitches them
People see them as an active negative right now rather than how intel pitches them
But since we're on a technical forum where my initial comment's parent seems to argue this issue is Intel's fault, I think it's interesting to determine whether that's actually the case.
Of course, had Intel not released such a CPU, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But since they have released similar ones a few years ago now, is it still (only?) their fault?
In practice this is more of a problem for gaming news site headlines than users anyways. For all but the biggest enthusiast the uplift from going to a new system is usually so much they'd not notice it could be a couple percentage points better or that one game is still a bit hitchy. It's us ultra-nerds that care about the 1% lows between different top end CPUs, and we tend to be quickly convinced the problem is Microsoft's to solve for us when the scheduling problem hits ARM, AMD, and Intel based Windows devices equally.
Although Intel’s configurations are unhelpful to say the least: it’s hard to make good scheduling decisions when Intel sells a 2P, 8E, 2LE as a 12 cores to the user.
"Intel Thread Director leverages machine learning to make intelligent decisions about how to utilize the different types of cores in a hybrid processor, leading to better overall performance and power efficiency."
Feel free to unsee it and ban me.
Disclaimer: I work in gamedev on engine and performance.