anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on May 19, 2013 10:11 pm wrote:
> Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.linux-foundation.org) on May 19, 2013 12:19 pm wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on May 19, 2013 11:39 am wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds very LRB. Not at all like a Silverthorne.
> >
> > So I have no real inside information, and I may have exaggerated things a bit, and it was
> > all complete conjecture anyway (but conjecture that explains what we saw with Atom).
> >
> > But I'm interested: why do you think the original Atom core is a much better core than LRB?
> >
> > Yes, yes, LRB had the magical vector extensions and obviously the whole "lots of cores" thing, so it was
> > very different and much more ambitious than Atom was, but I think they are similar in the sense that they
> > started out as small projects by a couple of people, and took a lot of shortcuts due to that.
> >
> > And my real argument was that the reason the original Atom was in-order wasn't that it was a better
> > and more power-efficient design, it was because it was a short-cut for a project that didn't have
> > the resources to do anything more. Then it kind of stayed that way (much too long).
>
> The thing is that Intel already knows how to do good, performant, power efficient cores.
> There is two decades of experience there, you don't *need* to go back to Pentium core.
>
> They could have started with a pentium-m ish core, and probably had a much easier ability to take improved
> structures from later cores and even share their own improvements back to the high performance line.
>
> I think the reason they did not do that is because management
> is petrified about cannibalizing their own high margin lines.
>

Yo, must have been my non-native English skills or did i read correctly that you say that Silvermont is not a good chip compared to as what intel could've showed up with, within the given power envelope?

Kind Regards,
Vincent