The likelihood of Intel revealing the E-core P-core design remains uncertain.
The likelihood of Intel revealing the E-core P-core design remains uncertain.
There remains an advantage with compact cores occupying minimal space, allowing greater core density, though that's it.
Unlikely. Intel and ARM might both be pursuing similar approaches: one leverages ARM’s architecture while the other focuses on AMD’s innovations. Both seem to aim for a mixed or heterogeneous system rather than a uniform "all-p-core" design. We shouldn’t expect a comeback of large multi-core CPUs. Instead, hyperthreading is likely to vanish across all cores due to security concerns, and L3 cache may be replaced by larger L2 caches to prevent side-channel threats. A major challenge lies in how operating systems manage these varied cores—applications shouldn’t automatically run critical threads on the fastest cores. A 16-core P-series plus 32-E core setup probably represents the next trend. Most single-purpose tasks lose efficiency as performance gains shrink, especially when thread synchronization becomes necessary. Tasks that can be parallelized (like machine learning or compression) still require some sequential steps, so mixing fast and slow cores creates bottlenecks. Designing software to clearly mark certain threads for P-core or E-core execution could help. The oversight with AVX512 was real; it wasn’t available on the P cores simply because the OS couldn’t verify that, leading Intel to assume the absence of support rather than manage it.