Take that, Intel and your "let's remove AVX-512 from every consumer CPU because we want to put slow cores on every single one of them and also not consider multi-pumping it"
A lot of this stems from the 10nm hole they had to dig themselves out from. Yields are bad, so costs are high, so let's cut the die as much as possible, ship Atom-derived cores and market it as an energy-saving measure. The expensive parts can be bigger and we'll cut the margins on those to retain the server/cloud sector. Also our earnings go into the shitter and we lose market share anyway, but at least we tried.
This issue is less about Intel's fab failures and more about their inability to decouple their architecture update cadence from their fab progress. They stopped iterating on their CPU designs while waiting for 10nm to get fixed. That left them with an oversized P core and an outdated E core, and all they could do for Alder Lake was slap them onto one die and ship it, with no ability to produce a well-matched pair of core designs in any reasonable time frame. We're still seeing weird consequences of their inability to port CPU designs between processes and fabs: this year's laptop processors have HyperThreading only in the lowest-cost parts—those that still have the CPU chiplet fabbed at Intel while the higher core count parts are made by TSMC.
