Shouldn't that be obvious, it's practically a tautology
Obviously Intel wants to compete on mobile. It's the biggest market now, and they've been the worst at it. But a new platform is expensive so in the beginning you have to start with the high-margin enthusiast chips, so even if a platform is designed to have gains on mobile you have to start them at the enthusiast level. If they weren't planning on scaling this down to mobile there would be no reason for this architecture. But it doesn't look like it will actually end up any more efficient with their tech.
You don't work at Intel I presume. Even of the people who work at Intel I doubt there's any one person who could tell you why they decided on the given arrangement.
I expect this kind of baseless speculation on some more casual forums not one where most of us are aware of how insanely complex modern CPU design is.
In the end they came up with a design that is already performing top of class in the workloads that are most common, and it's unlikely we won't see improvements over time.
-
I mean if your concern is productivity, here's what the people building systems for the worlds largest production houses have to say: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/12th-Gen-Intel-Co...?
> Overall, the 12th Gen Intel Core CPUs are terrific across the board, providing a large performance boost over the previous 11th Gen CPUs, and in almost every single case, handily out-performed AMD's Ryzen 5000 series. Intel's lead is larger at the i5 and i7 level, but even with the Core i9 12900K, Intel consistently came out on top.
I don't know why you're acting like they gave something up here... because their synthetic benchmarks aren't up to snuff?
The argument is made that in the same budget (die/power/heat) of a performance core you can fit multiple efficiency cores to help with threaded workloads, but this Intel CPU uses even more power, so wouldn't they have been better off with 100% performance cores on an "enthusiast" chip?