I agree, the patent is slightly odd in that it only makes a single claim on the media processing units. I think any multi-core processor would fit the claim of the patent. It seems that in this case the engineer was told to file the patent but they didn't have enough money to get the lawyers to produce some proper claims to protect the unique elements of this design.
Agreed. Most patents include a sequence of progressively narrower claims building on one another, including permutations of subsets of the new mechanisms claimed, with the expectation that the broadest is likely invalid, the narrowest is definitely novel, and the courts can determine where the boundary falls between the others.
That this patent does none of this I agree suggests a lawyer did not get paid enough, or the patent was intended to publish the ideas (i.e. stop the "big players" from copying an idea and patenting it).
As-is, depending on how you squint and read it, the single claim either is too specific for anything but a clone of the product it's describing to infringe, or so generic it's just describing prior art.
