Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on May 19, 2013 2:34 am wrote:
> 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."
>

Did Anand really said that 47M transistors are "incredibly small"?
It sounds so funny that it isn't even funny.

> 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...