The top Alder Lake desktop CPU has 16-cores, 8P+8E, compared to 8P in the 11-th gen. The E cores get around half the performance of the P cores, so the 8P+8E is get roughly the performance of a hypothetical 12P+0E CPU. The very high core parts are reserved for Xeon (a 56 core Alder Lake Xeon has been leaked, but I think the P/E split is still unknown).
What people need to realize is that a P cores takes around 4 times the die area/transistors of an E core, and use probably 3 to 4 times the power of an E core, but performance is only around double that of an E core. So with the same area, you get of the 8P+8E you can get 10P cores, not 12, and the question is if a 10P (rather than a 16P or even 12P) core Alder Lake is better than a 8P+8E. (Btw, these ratios are pretty similar as those for the Firestorm/Icestorm cores in Apple's M1.)
If your workload is very parallelizable you get more bang from your silicon and Watts with E cores than with P cores. If you have only embarrassingly paralleled workloads, you're probably better off with 32E cores than with a 8P cores.
What people need to realize is that a P cores takes around 4 times the die area/transistors of an E core, and use probably 3 to 4 times the power of an E core, but performance is only around double that of an E core. So with the same area, you get of the 8P+8E you can get 10P cores, not 12, and the question is if a 10P (rather than a 16P or even 12P) core Alder Lake is better than a 8P+8E. (Btw, these ratios are pretty similar as those for the Firestorm/Icestorm cores in Apple's M1.)
If your workload is very parallelizable you get more bang from your silicon and Watts with E cores than with P cores. If you have only embarrassingly paralleled workloads, you're probably better off with 32E cores than with a 8P cores.