The article likely meant they did a custom implementation of the architecture, not that they didn’t use automation during the design process. At least that’s what I’d assume without reading it (I’d be interested to read if you have link). It’s basically the difference between optimizing your application by rewriting the performance critical parts (good idea) and never using a compiler (bad idea).

Also, I don’t think what you wrote is offensive in any way - no need to edit unless you feel compelled to.

This was where I saw the article, but I think the original one is gone. It was a while ago: https://m.slashdot.org/story/175407

Here's Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20121014135435/http://www.chipwo...

The money shot:

"So this is the first Apple core we’ve seen done with custom digital layout. In fact, with the exception of Intel CPUs, it’s one of the first custom laid out digital cores we’ve seen in years! This must have taken a large team of layout engineers quite a long time. The obvious question is, why? This is a more expensive and time-consuming method of layout. However it usually results in a faster maximum clock rate, and sometimes results in higher density. Certainly one possibility is that Apple could not meet timing on a automatically laid out block, and chose to go with a custom laid out block. Was this a decision at the architecture stage, or did timing fail late in the design cycle and a SWAT team of layout engineers brought in to save the day? We’ll probably never know, but it is fascinating, and also 2X faster (according to the below image)"

So layout; not design. My brother is the one that does this kind of thing; not me.

Hand layout is certainly impressive but also a very far cry from no automation. I'd also like to point out this was probably the result of a design problem that had to be fixed through sheer brute force rather than something to aspire to. The quoted part of the article sort of says as much, albeit in an oblique way.

Fair 'nuff. I used improper superlatives.

There was another article that I read, back then, by a more "reputable" site, maybe an IEEE pub. Can't remember. it was a ways back.