Intel’s Robert Hallock Says Software, Not E Cores, Is Holding Back Gaming Performance

Intel is pushing back against one of the longest running criticisms of its hybrid desktop CPUs, with Robert Hallock arguing that the real problem behind weaker gaming performance is not the presence of Efficient cores, but software that failed to keep up. In an interview with PC Games Hardware, Hallock said some reviewers previously saw better gaming results with all E cores disabled, but insisted that this did not prove the cores themselves were hurting performance. Instead, he pointed to operating system scheduling and delayed software readiness as the true cause.

According to Hallock, there were cases where systems showed higher frame rates with E cores switched off because the scheduler was making poor thread placement decisions on hybrid CPUs. He said Intel had not delivered the appropriate software to market on the right schedule, which meant games and system threads were not always being assigned correctly between Performance and Efficient cores. In that kind of scenario, disabling E cores forced the scheduler into a simpler and more favorable behavior, making it look like the hardware layout itself was the problem when the deeper issue was software coordination.

That is the core of Intel’s new argument. Hallock said mixed P core and E core configurations are “virtually identical” in gaming performance to P core only setups, with the difference sitting at around 1 percent in Intel’s own comparisons. If that claim holds up broadly, then the bigger story is not that E cores damage gaming, but that PC software, engines, drivers, and scheduling layers still do not always extract the full value from hybrid CPU designs.

Hallock also made a broader point that many enthusiasts will likely find provocative. He said the PC gaming market, and especially hardcore enthusiasts, are significantly underestimating the importance of software to the overall PC experience. He argued that while faster hardware can always raise the ceiling, there is often still another 10 percent, 20 percent, or even 30 percent of performance hidden behind poor optimization for a given CPU. That means the headline gaming gap is not always just a silicon story. In Intel’s view, some of it is performance that software simply is not unlocking yet.

This framing is especially important for Intel because it shifts the conversation away from raw architecture criticism and toward ecosystem maturity. Hybrid CPUs depend on far more than just the chip itself. They rely on the operating system scheduler, engine level thread behavior, background task handling, power settings, firmware tuning, and Intel’s own Thread Director support to work as intended. Hallock’s comments suggest Intel sees that interaction layer as the real battleground for gaming performance rather than the E core concept itself.

That does not automatically mean Intel is right in every practical case. Gamers judge CPUs by the frame rates they actually get, not by where the missed performance originated. If a game runs worse on one platform because the ecosystem around the chip is less optimized, that still counts as a real disadvantage in the market. But Hallock’s comments do add important context: Intel is effectively acknowledging that earlier gaming issues around hybrid CPUs were real, while also arguing they were software execution failures rather than proof that E cores are fundamentally bad for gaming.

For the wider PC space, this is a meaningful reminder that CPU performance is no longer just about clocks, cache, and core counts. As architectures become more complex, software readiness matters more than ever. Intel’s position is that hybrid hardware can deliver strong gaming results, but only if the software stack knows how to use it correctly. If developers and platform vendors do not keep pace, a meaningful chunk of potential performance may stay trapped behind bad scheduling and weak optimization.

Whether players accept that argument is another question. But Intel is clearly trying to reset the narrative: the gaming gap is not just in the silicon. A lot of it, Robert Hallock says, is still hiding in the software.

What do you think matters more for gaming CPU performance today: better chip design, or better software that actually knows how to use the hardware properly?