I was reproducing an ARM marketing term incorrectly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE
Basically, the idea is that you have a number of small, low power cores together with a few larger, faster, but less efficient cores. Intel hasn't made anything doing that. Intel also tried to get x86 chips into phones but it didn't work out for them.
>"is actually an issue and that's part of why you don't see BIG.little approaches in x86 land and why atom did so poorly in the phone market."
Is BIG an acronym here? I had trouble understanding that sentence. Cheers.