BIG.little
Why Intel’s BIG.little Architecture is a Nightmare for Windows Scheduling
Intel’s attempt at BIG.little architecture—a trash that's been borrowed from ARM but forcefully crammed into x86—was supposed to be an efficiency breakthrough. Instead, it turned into a scheduling dumpster fire that made Windows 11 an unnecessary requirement, forced users into constant performance inconsistencies, and left developers pulling their hair out.
Let’s break down why this architecture is more of a problem than a solution for desktop and gaming workloads.
1. Windows Scheduler Struggles to Handle Mixed Cores
In a traditional CPU, all cores are created equal—same speed, same cache access, same performance behavior. This makes Windows’ scheduler (the part of the OS that assigns tasks to cores) pretty straightforward. But Intel’s BIG.little design splits the CPU into:
- P-Cores (Performance Cores) – Powerful, high-clocked cores meant for heavy tasks.
- E-Cores (Efficiency Cores) – Weaker, low-power cores meant for background tasks.
Sounds good in theory, right? The problem is that Windows isn’t designed to perfectly assign workloads across two wildly different core types. Instead, you end up with:
- Games or performance-heavy apps getting scheduled on E-Cores → Instant FPS drops.
- Background tasks eating up P-Cores → Less performance for the tasks that actually need it.
- Context switching overhead → The scheduler has to constantly check which core should get what, introducing unnecessary latency.
Intel had to introduce Thread Director, a hardware-level assist to tell Windows which core to use, but guess what? It only works properly on Windows 11.
2. Forced Windows 11 Upgrade – Because Intel Needed a Crutch
Unlike traditional CPUs where Windows 10’s scheduler was already optimized, Intel’s BIG.little mess required an entirely new software layer to fix scheduling problems. Enter Windows 11.
Intel basically offloaded their own architectural mess onto Microsoft, forcing them to optimize scheduling for their CPU instead of, you know, just designing a better CPU in the first place.
The result? If you use an Intel 12th, 13th, or 14th Gen CPU on Windows 10:
❌ Your gaming performance is inconsistent.
❌ Your system might favor E-Cores when it shouldn’t.
❌ Some applications get locked to the wrong cores entirely.
And the best part? If Microsoft drops support for Windows 10, you’re forced to upgrade to an OS you may not even want—just because Intel’s design needs extra babysitting.
Meanwhile, AMD’s traditional core structure works flawlessly across both Windows 10 and 11 without needing any special tricks. Problem? Intelfags.
3. Games and Software Aren’t Optimized for BIG.little on x86
Unlike ARM processors (which have been using BIG.little for years in mobile), PC gaming and desktop software aren’t built with this core split in mind. That means:
- Some games refuse to launch because anti-cheat systems detect E-Cores as a “different” CPU.
- Older software assumes all cores have the same performance, leading to major slowdowns when workloads get dumped onto E-Cores.
- Multithreading optimizations that worked well on traditional CPUs don’t translate to Intel’s weird hybrid setup.
Developers now have to patch their software just to make it play nice with Intel’s design. This wouldn’t be a problem if Intel had stuck with the tried-and-true all-powerful-core approach like AMD.
4. E-Cores? More Like “Excuse-Cores”
The argument for E-Cores is power efficiency—Intel claims they reduce power consumption by handling background tasks more efficiently. But in reality, here’s what’s happening:
- Intel already has worse power efficiency than AMD, even with E-Cores.
- If you disable E-Cores in BIOS (which many users do to improve game performance), the CPU actually runs better—proving they aren’t really needed in desktop workloads.
- If Intel just refined their architecture instead of tacking on weak cores, they wouldn’t need this mess in the first place.
Meanwhile, AMD is out here not using E-Cores, yet delivering better performance-per-watt with their standard core designs.
Final Verdict: Intel’s BIG.little is Just BIG.Problem
Intel’s BIG.little architecture is a desperate attempt to copy ARM without considering how Windows and x86 workloads actually function. The result?
✔ Requires Windows 11 just to function correctly.
✔ Causes unnecessary scheduling issues in gaming and productivity.
✔ Introduces more complexity for developers and users.
✔ Forces customers to deal with Intel’s design flaws instead of giving them a real improvement.
And that’s why AMD’s approach—sticking with equally powerful cores and focusing on actual performance gains—has led them to dethrone Intel in gaming, workstation, and enthusiast markets.
Intel bet big on a gimmick. AMD just bet on making good CPUs. And we all know who’s winning that game. 🎤🔥
