However, I'm not sure the size comparison of Zen4c to Zen4 is very useful, because AMD didn't just optimise Zen4 for performance, they also optimised it for an earlier release date.
My understanding is that AMD could have made Zen4 quite a bit smaller, but capable of the same clock speed, if they were willing to spent a lot more time and effort optimising for area.
And while AMD has a reputation for not optimising their layout for area and relying on simpler floorpans and automated routing (at least until Zen4c), Intel has the opposite reputation of going overboard with their layout optimisations when they perhaps wen't needed. So the "cove" cores are probably already area optimised. The delta of a Golden Cove core optimised for a lower clock speed should be much lower than the 35.4% delta that AMD got for Zen4c.
However, I'm not sure the size comparison of Zen4c to Zen4 is very useful, because AMD didn't just optimise Zen4 for performance, they also optimised it for an earlier release date.
My understanding is that AMD could have made Zen4 quite a bit smaller, but capable of the same clock speed, if they were willing to spent a lot more time and effort optimising for area.
And while AMD has a reputation for not optimising their layout for area and relying on simpler floorpans and automated routing (at least until Zen4c), Intel has the opposite reputation of going overboard with their layout optimisations when they perhaps wen't needed. So the "cove" cores are probably already area optimised. The delta of a Golden Cove core optimised for a lower clock speed should be much lower than the 35.4% delta that AMD got for Zen4c.