Awesome! I couldn’t be happier for you! 
Yeah, I don’t know what “pull serious weight” means. And that’s really what my point was in adding to the thread. The previous posts sounded like you were indeed a technical expert and were not only making recommendations to others, but actually “guaranteeing” performance with Process Lasso, etc. But “pull serious weight” is just a subjective term, which insofar as DAW performance and choice of hardware, is rather meaningless. I don’t mean that in a critical way, just an empirical way. Unfortunately, “looking at task manager” tells you (in my opinion) next to nothing about optimizing real-time audio processing.
Yeah, that’s the problem, actually. In general, each track runs one thread while processing audio. It’s really “each serialized instance of real-time effects processing uses a single thread.” Each track’s latency compensation contributes to overall project compensation of course, and thus your slower, less efficient “efficiency cores” are slowing everything down. It’s kind of the opposite of what you (well, “the DAW community”) wants. Those other 16 e-cores have HALF the L1 cache of the p-cores. And the L2 cache is also half, but it’s even shared among 4-core clusters. So even if you had the world’s fastest p-cores, it wouldn’t matter at all as the project latency will wait for the slower e-cores to catch up.
It would be interesting to see if just the 8 p-cores with all the e-cores blocked worked even better than having the 16 e-cores, but that would take actual empirical testing. Interesting thought-experiment though.
But right on, and glad you like the new rig!