POST A COMMENT

26 Comments

Back to Article

  • SeleniumGlow - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    I'll be amazed (or not?) if they drop in an ARM architecture in the Quark... or ARM like... they do have a license for it... time to use 'em I guess. Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    I thought they sold the license along with their previous arm cpu family. Reply
  • SeleniumGlow - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Yes... what you said is correct. Intel did sell it off to Marvell, however they did keep the license for ARM at architectural level (as in wikipedia... I know it isn't a good source, but that's all I have). Intel is keeping us in nice suspense here though. Reply
  • Jaybus - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Intel has been building RISC processors for a very long time, probably longer than ARM. Certainly the i960 was being designed around the time of the founding of Advanced RISC Machines, Ltd. They definitely have the ability to design an updated RISC core. Not to say that Quark is definitely RISC at all. My bet is that it's a 32-bit x86. Reply
  • bhtooefr - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Winner winner chicken dinner.

    "As for the core Intel’s spokeswoman Caludia Mangano said that the first product in the Quark family is a synthesizable Pentium ISA compatible CPU core."

    http://gigaom.com/2013/09/10/intel-announces-new-q...
    Reply
  • jwcalla - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Jeez. They have a really weird definition of "open architecture". Reply
  • iMacmatician - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    According to what was reported in the PCPer live blog, the core isn't open, but the fabric is. Reply
  • wlee15 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Marvell already had a ARM architectural license when it bought Intel's ARM line plus I don't think the license is transferable. Reply
  • Penti - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Uhm, they build ARM-based baseband chips in the millions. So they do license low end ARM Ltd IP-cores already and they didn't need to transfer any license when they sold of the XScale series, they continued to produce EOL/legacy network processors and such for a while after the sale so it didn't immediately expire. Their SSD controllers also contains some form of ARM-core. Their chipset actually contains a ARC-core for management capabilities. Their WiFi, GPS solutions also contains microprocessors. Remember it was a long time ago Intel was a MCU company. Of course they will use ARM and others. Doing custom microcontrollers with custom architecture isn't their business though. Reply
  • jfinely - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Intel confirmed it is X86 compatible to the eetimes's Rick Merrit

    eetimes.com/document.asp?itc=eetimes%5Fsitedefault&doc_id=1319447&page_number=1
    Reply
  • Mondozai - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Awesome that you guys are at the IDF and that the Apple event isn't soaking up all the oxygen. I was a bit disappointed over the paltry coverage of the Qualcomm event recently, their Vuforia stuff was pretty awesome, judging from their keynote, which I saw later after the event was finished.

    I hope this article isn't an aberration but part of an ongoing series to cover this year's IDF conference in detail.
    Reply
  • Krysto - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Everything Intel wants to do in the lower-end markets, ARM can do better, with less power, and cheaper.

    ARM has been having chips like this for years. Intel is trying to enter again in a market completely dominated by ARM, and they'll have just as much success as in the smartphone market, which is to say: not much.
    Reply
  • Nagorak - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    We'll see about that. I think Intel has been like a sleeping giant. Now that they've awoken I think they can take the fight to ARM. They have a huge process advantage and a great deal of experience with X86. Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    "targeting existing industrial microcontroller users such as energy, transportation, and other general industrial segments"

    So Intel saving like 1W on 1KW+ equipment = ARM is deader than dead wooooooo. A solution looking for an non existent problem.
    Reply
  • Klimax - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    ARM can't make anything. They're producing only designs... I think you thought Qualcomm or Samsung, but I wouldn't rather bet on them having some innate ability Intel doesn't have. Reply
  • Daniel Egger - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    lol, what a name. Quark is also a German word for curd and quite often used as synonym for nonsense that someone is claiming. Reply
  • ClockworkPirate - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Also, it's a subatomic particle (smaller than an atom, get it?). Reply
  • kenyee - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    And how does this compare w/ ARM chips in idle/run modes??? Reply
  • irrationalJohn - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    I keep hoping that someone will give an explanation of just what the heck is meant by Intel "calling Quark an “open architecture” product". I'm very curious to learn how “open architecture” can be morphed into "Pentium ISA compatible". Reply
  • Impulses - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    Anything can be morphed however in pseudo marketing speak. Reply
  • jwcalla - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    Apparently it means you can piece together your SoC, kind of like you can on ARM.

    But yeah, when I think "open architecture" I think of something like SPARC.
    Reply
  • Arnulf - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    What kind of performance and power consumption while running at 100% and when idling are we really looking at ? "Compared to Silvermont" doesn't mean much because Silvermont extends an order of magnitude across the planned line-up. I want to know how far technology has progressed since the days of 10-15W Pentiums :-)

    I used one Pentium system (150 MHz) for better part of a decade (before its PSU gave up) as firewall/router/NAS and it performed admirably. If Intel can offer this kind of performance on a board the size of a credit card (with SoC the size of a fingernail being the center of it and various connectors and PSU components taking up most of the board's real estate) at negligible power consumption, they will drive MIPS et al out of networking world entirely.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    This level of performance should be relatively easy to reach for them, I guess. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link

    Things could get interesting if Intel also went for BIG.little configurations with Quark and Atom, or Quark + Atom + high end. It would not even have to be completely symmetric, like Samsung currently still does it. Maybe just 1 tiny core for some power saving, or many tiny cores for micro servers, with a few big cores for time-critical tasks. Reply
  • arms8586 - Friday, September 13, 2013 - link

    A very insightful article on how Intel is finding new avenues to attack ARM while still sticking to x86. However, I have some reservations on its success since, power becomes biggest concern as size decreases and devices run on battery. Anyway, more detail by Q4 would give deeper insights on relation between power, performance and cost and thus a fair comparison with ARM.

    Btw, there is a typo. It says "but they are throwing around the idea of one-fifth the size and one-tenth the size of their existing low-end Atom (Silvermont) CPU cores". It should be one tenth of power instead of size. Here is the transcript. http://goo.gl/WvWmUF, page 10.
    Reply
  • everex11 - Monday, September 16, 2013 - link

    as Dorothy explained I can't believe that any one able to make $5224
    in one month on the computer. look at this web-site......www.pick85.com/
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now