EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com) on May 19, 2013 12:20 am wrote:
> Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on May 18, 2013 11:04 pm wrote:
> > A few years can change quite few things, like process node or available structures for OOO core.
>
> While true I don't think this is the case here, in both reasons (first for going in order then for going
> out of order) I think Intel wasn't willing to talk about design decisions and just give a random excuse.
>

Anandtech mentioned back then size and cost:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2449/2
"In order to eventually compete in the ARM-space, Silverthorne has to be small and very cheap. The CPU itself is incredibly small thanks to its paltry 47M transistor count contributing to a die that's only 25 mm^2. Intel kept Silverthorne's die size small by greatly simplifying its architecture."

Unfortunately text doesn't say if it is Anand's extrapolation from known facts or if Intel stated it.

BTW: Follow up article about platform (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2465) stated it was originally wanted by Apple for iPhone...