Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 4
    I’m voting to close this question because it is related to hardware architectures more than software engineering Commented Feb 6, 2022 at 21:53
  • @Christophe then why wasn't this question about CPU's and RAM memory closed as well then? Or this question about multiple parallel tasks Commented Feb 6, 2022 at 21:54
  • 1
    I see your point. I honestly would have voted to close one of them too. I understand however that one could more easily perceive them as being related to OS and embedded system development. I see your question more related to hardware design. But don’t worry: it’s a vote, and if I’m the only one, the question will stay open. Commented Feb 7, 2022 at 8:49
  • 1
    @Maurice There's a bit of false equivalence here, between performance (P) and efficiency (E) cores. You can't trade them 1 for 1, so you're not choosing between "8 P cores" vs "4 P cores + 4 shitty E cores"). It might be more like "6 P cores" vs "4 P cores + 4 E cores", where the choice is much less obvious. Take a look at the die photos of Intel Alderlake CPUs as an example, and you'll see just how big of a size difference there is between their P and E cores. Commented Feb 7, 2022 at 13:29
  • Increasing clock frequency typically involves tradeoffs, usually resulting in a larger core, more cache, and higher power consumption. For a highly parallel tasks it is usually more power efficient to have many small cores with a slower clock. Commented Feb 7, 2022 at 15:15