"Intel Unveils Tiny Quark"

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

 

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 ...

 

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?)

 

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

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

 

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

$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.

 

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.

 

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

Also:
makeit.intel.com