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.
I've been preparing to assemble a PC and recently changed my CPU from Intel 10th gen to 12th gen. I noticed I need Windows 11 to fully utilize the new "unique" cores. I'm worried that if Intel changes this design, my current build—intended for years ahead—might become ineffective unless the next generation is performance-only. Could you let me know if Intel is likely to remove this configuration and whether Microsoft will eventually stop supporting it?
Even if Intel chooses to abandon their "big.LITTLE" design later (and nobody can confirm it except an insider), the current compatibility won’t disappear completely. Many machines still run Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads, which can handle basic tasks like light browsing or office work without issues—though they may not perform optimally.
The core2s use identical cores, so no unique core manager was required. However, the situation changes significantly with the 12th generation.
Big little seems set to remain... Intel is leveraging this opportunity effectively, and the foundation they built with Microsoft for a robust scheduler won’t disappear. I’m skeptical they’d invest so much effort if they didn’t recognize this as a lasting strategy. Even if it fades from desktops, it’s the sole method Intel uses now to stay competitive and energy-efficient on mobile devices.
Some support remains tailored for each CPU generation. While the scheduler for the 12th generation is impressive, every new processor and chipset still requires certain optimizations. This trend is expected to continue, with laptops likely maintaining this level of support for a long time, irrespective of desktop systems.
It seems you're unsure about any concerns you might have. What would you like to discuss?
It's just one aspect of the overall design. There have been countless other modifications over time, and those components are still functioning properly. For a significant shift to compare, Core 2 Duos/Core 2 Quads required a Northbridge on the motherboard to link the CPU with RAM, but this was later incorporated directly into the CPU itself with Nehalem (first generation Core i processors). This change didn't disrupt the performance of the Duos and Quads.
Yeah, that architecture makes a ton of sense on mobile devices. There's no reason to have big power hungry cores running, if your machine is sitting idle while you're browsing a forum or something. Mobile phones have used this architecture for a long time already, because it simply makes sense. Being restricted to Windows 11 may suck now, but once the final release (of Windows 10) is out, I'd hope/expect Windows 11 will be stable enough to use. Who knows, AMD may be using a similar architecture by then.
Based on my observations AMD generally doesn't require much extra power - their performance cores work very efficiently by themselves. Switching from an Intel (10th gen) laptop to an AMD one (5700u, just Zen2) was a big change. When idle Intel used around 6W but spiked above 10W with any activity, AMD stayed under 1W idle and even outperformed Intel at full 40W load. I think Intel relied on the big/little architecture mainly because their performance cores couldn't run well in low power.