The public release from ARM said it is "250mw per CPU". But CPU is a fuzzy word. Why ARM did not say "250mw per processor"? Here is another news release from CrunchGear. It said:

"The 40nm Cortex-A9 CPU will use conventional silicon chips and each CPU core will consume less than 0.25 watts of power."

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/16/arm-breaks-2ghz-barrier-with-dual-core-cortex-a9-processor/

over at semiaccurate.com then he should know that a PROCESS doesn't have a yield, a chip design ON a process does. TMSC's 40nm process was said to require that designers do their homework properly in order to get good yields, something that ATI/AMD who also still use TMSC for graphics chip fabrication had supposedly done.
Arm's A9 design is both tiny (compared to GPUs) and optimised for the 40nm process. This should result in the ability to get 1000's of good chips per 40nm wafer.

lols at Flaworite. rofl :D
Gettin' stone cold busted like that must be tough to deal with....kinda' like getting your first wedgie at school, I would surmise; it takes you by surprise and hurts like hell. lol :D

My message pad 2100 had a StrongArm in it. Finally a decent Apple design, the Newton is coming back.

Is it one processor (dual core) at 250mw?

So its like 4 cores at 2x250mw?

This is far superior to the Atom. (At least on paper).

2GHz, 2x250mw is very impressive. What is the price vs Atom dual-core?

Sounds familiar...

maybe:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/09/15/nvidia-gt300-yeilds-under-2/
?

It is going to be very interesting to see what Nvidia shows off at 'Not Nvision' in a couple of weeks. Will it give the parts to the engineers to work on, or show them off as a PR stunt? We will know soon enough. In any case, the yields as they stand are sub-2%, and the status of the GT300 is far worse than we had ever imagined