I can´t express how disappointed i´m that Intel isn´t going to release a single CPU just with efficient cores. A quad or octa core composed of only efficient cores would be a blast for a laptop.

Intel Evo sounds like pure marketing BS to be honest. "real world battery life", "while maintaining connectivity [...] in multi person video calls.", etc. Is that the new "high tech"? "It consumes energy and doesn't crash instantly." is a declaration of QUALITY?!?! I am old ... Get off my lawn, but don't die doing so. 😛

H83:

I can´t express how disappointed i´m that Intel isn´t going to release a single CPU just with efficient cores. A quad or octa core composed of only efficient cores would be a blast for a laptop.

well all AL P & U are completely smoked by AMD Rembrandt. their all "p" core is more efficient than Intel's "e" cores while being more productive than the "p" cores. not to mention the Radeon 600 series iGPU - where the low end model outperforms the i-9. and did i mention they're less expensive for OEM? the 6000 series APU has over 10 hours of battery life. the best Intel has ever done is less than five hours. and yeah! there are folks who use the batteries on mobile (like me). i have a MacBook Pro for exactly that reason, but the 6000 series outdoes that too.

H83:

I can´t express how disappointed i´m that Intel isn´t going to release a single CPU just with efficient cores. A quad or octa core composed of only efficient cores would be a blast for a laptop.

I totally agree. That's what the Pentium and Celerons should have been. They're budget CPUs; they're not supposed to the most capable chips. Intel would have a legitimately compelling product that was just E-cores. Atom could've been 2, Celeron could've been 4, Pentium could've been 6, and Pentium Gold could've been 8. It would make the product lineup less confusing too, since the Core i series would be only ones with P and E cores. I assume the new Xeons will be P-only. Marketing is frustrating sometimes...

schmidtbag:

I totally agree. That's what the Pentium and Celerons should have been. They're budget CPUs; they're not supposed to the most capable chips. Intel would have a legitimately compelling product that was just E-cores. Atom could've been 2, Celeron could've been 4, Pentium could've been 6, and Pentium Gold could've been 8. It would make the product lineup less confusing too, since the Core i series would be only ones with P and E cores. I assume the new Xeons will be P-only. Marketing is frustrating sometimes...

tty8k:

They're forced by competition results (Apple M1) If they released a chip only based on E cores would be significantly behind M1 performance. They're on the right track though now matching and even surpassing M1 chip in performance. Even power efficiency while not even close to M1 is much better than 11k series. This is a comparison with the "old" 11k series:

schmidtbag has basically answered for me. The versions with efficient cores only would be destined for entry versions, not for the higher end ones. And those versions wouldn´t compete against Apple´s M1, that´s a very different beast. The efficient cores are much more interesting than the performance ones for a lot of tasks and Intel simply doesn´t care...

imho, Intel should have refreshed Atom w/ Gracemont ("e" cores) and kept it where there was no competition from AMD. the Gracemont story is the most compelling part of AL and there's a wide range of use case scenarios for a cpu that doesn't need to use an L3 cluster (in AL the "e" cores can use the L3 of the "p" cores).