There's a giant pile of software - decades worth of it, literally - which was already written and released, much of it now unmaintained and/or closed source, where the effort you cite is not a possibility.
By all means anything released in 2025 doesn't have that excuse - but I can't fault the authors of 15+ years old programs for not having a crystal ball and accounting for something which didn't exist at the time. Intel releasing something which behaves so poorly in that scenario is.... not really 100% fine in my eye. Maybe a big warning sticker on the box (performs poorly with pre-2024 software) would be justified. Thankfully workarounds exist.
P.S.
At least I would have expected them to work more closely with OS vendors and ensure their schedulers mitigate the problem, but nope, doesn't look like they did.
Imagine going back when 12th gen was released and posting your post. Alas, nothing has improved in 5 generations of hardware that required complete PC rebuild each time since then. Buying intel for gaming is like a test for ignorance now. There might be a decade before any trust can be restored in the brand /imho.
Not sure what you're talking about, NT/Linux are well aware of the P/e cores and how to schedule among them for these past handful of generations.
I also moved to AMD (5800X3D) due X3D alone being a massive improvement for simulations. Intel is still better in the laptop space and just outright more available (though I'm Mac-only for day-to-day laptop usage).
I am talking about gaming workloads being less efficient on particular E-core enabled CPUs. My point is that Day 1 has been generations ago and gaming workloads suffer the same as of that Day 1. Linked article does not mention running anything on Linux so not sure why to bring it up. Note that linked article sidestepped those issues by disabling E-cores.
Afaik Windows is delegating most of scheduling work to "Intel Thread Director".
What makes you sound optimistic about part "how to schedule" ? Do you have any links I can follow?
By all means anything released in 2025 doesn't have that excuse - but I can't fault the authors of 15+ years old programs for not having a crystal ball and accounting for something which didn't exist at the time. Intel releasing something which behaves so poorly in that scenario is.... not really 100% fine in my eye. Maybe a big warning sticker on the box (performs poorly with pre-2024 software) would be justified. Thankfully workarounds exist.
P.S. At least I would have expected them to work more closely with OS vendors and ensure their schedulers mitigate the problem, but nope, doesn't look like they did.