I am aware that Intel IHS is larger than AMD's current package. Which contributes to Intel CPU running cooler. Better dissipation.

Uhm, are you trying to play the buffoon here? xD That has really not that much to do with the heat-spreader …
If anything, by that logic AMD's SKUs would have to run cooler, since the heat is spread over a way larger (surface-) area.

The smaller the process and the higher the density given SKU's dies are fabbed in, the higher the punctual heat-density, which increases the spotty heat-dissipation tremendously. It's basically same wattage in a way smaller spot, hence more difficult to cool.

Without ARM pushing a big.LITTLE design, Intel might not have launched a p/E core design.

That had exactly nothing to do with ARM itself nor their competitive standing, like at all.

That overly glorified Hybrid&nbsP;architecture of Intel like ARM's well-established heterogeneous big.LITTLE/DynamicIQ approach, is a mediocre and desperate stopgap-solution, solely born out of necessity due to everlasting yield-issues (can't fab any bigger dies for good) …

For when Intel just had to urgently increase core-count for trying to keep pace in AMD's core-war and not fall behind any further then what they already where at that point in time. It's a hot mess, utter chaos and scheduling-nightmare anyway, where consumers have to dearly pay for Intel's panic-driven fall-out of competition and have to suffer horrendous latency-issues ever since …

They didn't regressed the core-count between Rocket Lake's 8C and Comet Lake's former 10C just for fun (which was unheard of ever before!), but because they just couldn't fit any more cores on their 14nm any viable neither physically nor yield-wise, not to even mentioning the outright insane power-draws their SKUs already had at stock (253W TDP).

It's said that the best inventions are born out of necessity, it begets ingenuity and that necessity is the mother of all inventions. Yet Intel's Hybrid-thingy is the second-worst implemented architecture to date (if we take the industry's single-worst architecture and their prominent dumpster-fire Itanium for good measure) and as technically flawed as it can be, at least from the scheduling side of things.

Ever since, we have slow-downs of 500–1500ms of interprocess-latency on Windows, horrendous frame-times and general sluggishness, which Intel never really addressed nor owned up to, as they never cared about it in the first place – The number one goal was to increase core-count, no matter what. A chiplet-based architecture would've been a thousand times better than their garbage-hybrid mess, where they were stupid enough to intermix different cores with even completely different ISA-extensions (AVX512, Hyper-Threading etc.).

Though Intel just didn't had that very magic glue of AMD which enabled a flawless and as-good chiplet-implementation in the first place (InfinityFabric™) and not only brought their tiles approach (which is a quite good implemented version of AMD's chiplet-approach, for what Intel had at hand and at their disposal to bring). Noes …

No, Intel was unfortunately stupid enough to even eff up their rather good copy-cat of AMD's chiplets, to mix in their already bad enough theoretical idea of a heterogeneous architecture, only to eff it up completely …

If Intel would've only implemented Foveros/3D, and (for sanity's sake) leave it at that for once, to increase the amount of actual cores, they would've been just fine and consumers would've gotten a pretty much as-good architecture to compete against AMD's ever-increasing core-count using their chiplets. Yet it's Intel after all, and they just couldn't possibly resist their urge, to completely f–ck up their quite good idea of their AMD-inspired chiplet-copycat Foveros with their hybrid-apporach to ruin it for everyone involved!

Talking about dangerously lethal cuts and self-inflicted wounds being tried to stop from bleeding with vigorously salted patches, while 'em trying to heal … and then wonder why it takes so long and the debt holders alongside the official bailiffs are come knocking.

You really just can't make up their stupid, they have to constantly display it instead.

Both AMD and Intel complement each other. Seriously. Without AMD pushing tiles, Intel may have never gone that route.

Of course, competition is necessary. The worst example for its necessity was Intel only offering quad-cores for a decade. Though AMD never had pushed tiles, but chiplets – No, that's not the same at all!

I'm not even pedantic here, as implementing chiplets rather than tiles, requires the necessity to have a viable interconnect (the underlying fabric, to interweave the compounds) for it in the first place – Intel has lacked AMD's InfinityFabric nicknamed MagicGlue™ and hence had to use tiles for that very reason, instead of going the same route and use the chiplet-approach.

Simply put, chiplets are smart (for lack of a better word), while tiles are rather dumb – Not because it comes from AMD or intel respectively and would entail another ideological trench warfare, but because chiplets are designed as completely autonomous parts of silicons and rather act more like a platform-controller hub (PCH) than a processor-core or another pat of embedded silicon.

Contrary to chiplets, tiles are way less autonomous and need to be implemented into 'something bigger', need a more take-it-by-the-hand approach and something overarching which takes control over them, since they're way less designed to act upon and show self-reliance as compared to chiplets.

To put it simply, picture a chiplet more like a self-reliant and autonomous add-in card in a PCi-E-slot, which can fully autonomously engage in compute loads, can in and of itself ask for and receive process-loads and compute-streams and schedules brought-over or requested compute-loads for itself (to send them out again after processing has been finished), all the while it acts rather self-governing. Very much like a SCSI- or Firewire-device.

Tiles on the other hand, are way less self-governing and act more like a embedded FPU – It's hopelessly useless and lost in place, if there's no other overarching part of silicon commanding it, takes charge and processes orders to be computed for it. Call it somewhat 'headless'. That's why their tiles have to be embedded into (onto, physically) a 'smart interposer' or tile itself, which already implements and has that very governing-function chiplets already have on their own.

Intel's interposer-tiles are NOT just mere physical bonding-tiles, but take over processing-, scheduling- and commanding-functions for the tiles which gets embedded/bonded atop first and foremost!

That's what Intel's Foveros is, the face-to-face (F2F) chip-on-chip bonding through extremely fine-pitched 36-micron microbumps. Talking about some fancy publicity-driven '3D-packaging' and marketing again giving it a misleading packaging-spin, when in reality it just incorporates their Active Interposer or Base Logic Die they talk about. It's not really a packaging-thing, as the ability to stack them (3D) is only the result of the very necessity to have their active interposer/base logic die in the first place.

That being said and all arrogance apart, it's AMD's InfinityFabric which is the very magic here, not really the chiplet-approach in and of itself, which gives Intel a hard time and a tough nut to crack ever since AMD came up with it. Since (every latency-related issue aside and just for the sake of the argument and explanation being brought across) you can put a chiplet pretty much everywhere on a PCi-Express-bus, and it will just work …

A tile not so much … Since it lacks the overarching processing 'header' and administrative apparatus/system to be self-governing.

Having said that, AMD did just exactly that, when putting their soutbridge/chipset and controller-chiplet back onto the motherboard back then with Ryzen 3000, when they moved their I/O-die chiplet (acting as the chipset) onto the board again with their AMD X570-chipset. They basically released their memory-controller out of the on-chip compound-structure of chiplets from the CPU and put their memory-controller back onto the board and separated it from the rest of their on-chip (CPU) chiplet-dies.

You think you can just move a tile (or any of their tiles for that matter) from Intel's CPU off the on-chip CPU-structure and put it onto the board? I highly doubt that, since it wouldn't act the same – It lacks the governing structure-system.

That's by the way the very reason, why Intel struggles so hard to bring anything Sapphire Rapids and Ponte Vecchio, since they never had the very interconnect they needed to put it in place. Their trying to have a chiplet-like approach using their tiles, while having to take PCi-E 5.0 as the very system-interconnect (CXL was proposed before PCi-E 5.0 was even fully drafted) backfired hard and brought them a lot of trouble on validation needing unheard of amounts of samples and revisions until it ran at least stable, right?