Forget about that x86 nonsense, we aren't interested in running Windows "Vista".
The worringy aspect is the new X-Scale variant is claimed to only have a 25% performance improvement from a 50% clock speed increment. So while in x86 land Intel may be seeing the light moving and away from the "clock bitch" Netburst architecture of the P4 back to the more efficent PIII like architecture used in the Pentium M and the up coming (as in in years behind AMD) dual core chips, when it comes to the X-Scale they are persuing the same old dead end strategy of stretching the pipeline and upping the headline clock speed in return for very little real performance advantage.
While we'd all like a multi GHz Iyonix, the chip has to deliver a significant real performance improvement to make it worth while Castle or any other manufacturer using it. I've always been less than impressed with Intels much delayed and meagre ongoing development on the X-Scale, after they killed DEC and squandered the head start achived by the StrongARM. Now ARM easily has the superior core designs, delivering more instructions per clock and watt in the ARM10 and 11, but unfortunately highly integrated SOCs based on these cores haven't yet been demanded by the market, so machines such as the A9Home are based on the older but still impressive ARM9 cores.