For general purpose computing, E-cores are perfectly fine. How many apps do you run that will use more than 8 cores (+HT) at full potential? It's ok to have some weaker cores where you can offload some of the less demanding threads. Plus, E-cores aren't exactly weak, otherwise how would Intel manage to beat AMD in multithreading?
It's heterogeneous computing, more complex to implement and use properly. But it puts 4 cores where only 1 big core would fit, so they make sense from a silicon point of view. And, more importantly, it works well overall.
That's what Intel realized. That's why it is increasing E cores and not P cores. Full marketing advantage, slim chance of losing in benchmarks because of "not enough P cores".
Now for general purpose, my 13 years old 6 cores Phenom II is also perfectly fine. It has way weaker cores than those E cores, but it's OK, system is smooth for browsing and office apps thanks to also running an SSD.
But, no reason to be defensive, about E cores here anyway. Relax. I was just pointing at Intel's marketing advantage.
By that same logic, consumers won't care what socket a CPU is. AMD can probably play core wars just as much as Intel, perhaps even easier due to their design approach. Intel invested in an entire refresh, but all AMD has to do is lower prices on stuff that's been on the market for years. Even then, at the end of the day, if the consumer is ignorant, it's not even going to matter. It's going to be what reviews and sales people tell them, along with the price of the entire system. Almost anything you buy today is going to easily be good enough for most people. In the laptop space, the quality of the webcam might matter more than anything.
I don't know how much room AMD has for more price reductions. Probably they can face Intel at better odds than when facing Nvidia. Intel's profit margin is somewhat low today compared to the past, at the same levels as AMD, so none has a significant advantage over the other. On the other part if AMD tries to start a price war with Nvidia, a company that enjoys 60%-70% profit margins, it will get destroyed.
Most consumers can't read reviews or understand reviews. The same way I wouldn't be able to understand reviews of stuff I haven't invested months in reading about.
Sales people will sell easier a 10 core CPU than a 6 cores CPU, even if that 10 core CPU is a 2P + 8E combination.
in laptops, yes a webcam could matter more because usually it's crap!!!
Are they? AM4 is still more than doubling Intel's current gen platform sales and AM5 has higher sales as well.
Back with Zen 1 more cores made sense, there was an immediate benefit to most consumers as the 4 core parts Intel was offering were completely tapped out. The same does not apply now. Adding cores past 8 is going to bring zero benefit to the vast majority of people.
You could say Intel is trying to repeat AMD's strategy, only consumers simply don't care nearly as much when those additional cores aren't providing benefit. The same applies to the laptop space. Consumers there value energy efficiency and IPC most of all.
I doubt AMD outsells Intel in the consumer market. Retail numbers are only a 5-10% of the whole market and Intel sells much more to OEMs than AMD. This Hybrid approach makes it easier for big OEMs to push systems with Intel CPUs, thanks to advertising high core count.
Consumers don't know if those extra E cores provide any significant advantage. But they do understand that 10 is bigger than 6, 12 is bigger than 8, 16 is bigger than 12, 24 is bigger than 16. Why do you think people are buying 4GB GT 730s for example? "Bigger memory must mean faster card". Laptops are more complicated but in many cases they just buy the OEM they know. And again the higher number of cores gives big OEMs a good marketing card to push Intel models. As for efficiency. I bet 1365U that comes with only 2P cores can manage acceptable efficiency in low load scenarios
(for example).
