Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on May 19, 2013 4:36 am wrote:
> 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)

Anand explicitly mentioned ARM in his first sentence. However it's still a ridiculous statement when you compare with Bobcat (and possibly VIA too). This is how small an Atom core is today. Remember die size translates to cost, so this is why Atom never came out in quad-core variants, not even the Centerton server parts (where quad-core would have made sense to try to compete with ARM).

Wilco