Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on May 19, 2013 4:02 am wrote:
> 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.
>

First paragraph in the link.
And then ???. Mind being bit more specific, what is wrong? (Also I am sure that it was in relation to rest of x86 cores be it Intel's, AMD's or VIA's, not Arm/MIPS cores)