"Intel Unveils Tiny Quark"

[epicstruggle]

That "we" seems to be the operative word. As in, Intel can synthesize it to include other IP provided to them. Doesn't seem to be saying that they'll license the core to third parties to synthesize, even though that may be the case.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...arm-with-synthesizable-ultra-low-power-quark/

Quark changes that. The Quark design is fully synthesizable, with extension points to allow customers to integrate their own functional blocks onto Quark SoCs. Intel CEO Brian Krzanich also said that although Intel would prefer that Quark chips (including those with custom, third-party blocks) be built on Intel's own fabs, Quark will in time be buildable by third parties.

This marks a big change for Intel. Together with its custom fab scheme—the company is selling manufacturing capacity to third parties who want to build chips—Intel is changing its approach to the microchip industry. What it's doing isn't innovative, per se—other companies have offered fabrication services (e.g. TSMC and AMD-spin off Global Foundries) and processor designs (e.g. ARM) for a long time. But Intel has made its riches from being fully integrated: selling Intel-designed chips, built on Intel's production lines.

This approach made sense for the PC market, but it's a much harder sell in the embedded space, where design customization is not just common but expected. Intel isn't as flexible as ARM yet, but with Quark, it's taking a big step closer.

 

[RecessionCone]

Intel announced in 2009 that they would allow Atom to be built at TSMC, and then put the project on hold because there were no customers. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1173146

I wonder what's different this time. Quark is small, but so is ARM and MIPS and ...

 

[Exophase]

http://arstechnica.com/information-...arm-with-synthesizable-ultra-low-power-quark/

Then we have this which gives a very different impression:

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/2754-intel-quark-synthesizable-core-but-you-can-t-have.html

When they say outright that the RTL isn't going to leave the building that doesn't say a lot about prospects of being built by other fabs.

Chances are one of these articles is slanted by a particular interpretation, I doubt both paraphrases are accurate. But which one is more correct, I have no idea. Like RecessionCone points out, Intel was willing to license some Atom IP before. All we heard from that was that customers weren't interested, but we don't really know why - restrictions in the terms or unfavorable pricing could have played a role (you have to ask yourself, is Intel really going to let you design an Atom SoC which is competitively priced against their own?)

 

[cal_guy]

Idontcare from the Anandtech forums commented on this way back in 2009.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=27516395&postcount=9

 

[epicstruggle]

http://arstechnica.com/information-...no-for-the-first-time-with-new-galileo-board/

The Intel Galileo reference board isn't a basic board. The Quark SoC is quite potent for a device of this type, resembling a Pentium 3 more than a microcontroller. Though the legacy Arduino connectors remain for compatibility with shields, Galileo features connectivity through USB (host and client), 100Mbps Ethernet, microSD, RS-232, and a full-size mini-PCI Express slot.

"Intel Galileo features the Intel Quark SoC X1000, the first product from the Intel Quark technology family of low-power, small-core products," the company said. "Intel Quark technology will extend Intel architecture into rapidly growing areas—from the Internet of Things to wearable computing in the future."

$60 dollars is a great price point for this. Hopefully they can get a more basic system out a $25, but this is another great step into the hobbyist market.

 

[Nakai]

I take it you meant validation with a MinnowBoard.
That card looks good indeed (tiny PC with a SD port to put the OS on)

I have a feeling Quark goes after 486 SoC instead (there are quite relatively many of them I think) but more modern and better ; and after ARM and MIPS stuff for embedded and industrial. Less powerful than the MinnowBoard in terms of raw CPU speed.

Semi-famously there was the Bifferboard, tiny and for real cheap with a 150MHz 486SX SoC and 32MB RAM, it came before the Raspberry Pi craze.
http://bifferos.co.uk/

BTW nvidia does own an old, old 386SX SoC from when they acquired ULi and they've had a product page, though it may be not terribly relevant.
http://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html

Quark Datasheet:
https://communities.intel.com/servl...y/21828-102-2-25120/329676_QuarkDatasheet.pdf

You are pretty right. It looks like a 32nm-486.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:80486DX2_arch.svg

 

[Raqia]

Quark Datasheet:
https://communities.intel.com/servl...y/21828-102-2-25120/329676_QuarkDatasheet.pdf

You are pretty right. It looks like a 32nm-486.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:80486DX2_arch.svg

That it's a 486-like architecture with a 5 stage pipeline would explain why clock speeds are only around 400 mhz.

 

[epicstruggle]

Edison:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/intel-edison/

Also:
makeit.intel.com