Breaking News
News & Analysis

Intel Quark Runs on Roof, Raises Questions

9/10/2013 03:36 PM EDT
25 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Jessigute
User Rank
Rookie
Pending Review
Jessigute   9/25/2016 4:39:52 AM
NO RATINGS
This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.

LennyP
User Rank
Author
Re: Must be 32 bit
LennyP   9/21/2013 10:06:57 PM
NO RATINGS
Considering the only requirements we know from the article was "to offer a remote maintenance capability with high security." it's rather far fetched to claim a "poor technical decision" as you maintain.  There are lots of reasons, besides the level of security provided, which would come into play in the decision by Daikin; think ease of use, maintainability, support, etc.

 Using your reference design for a tablet with military grade security is not revalent as this is not a tablet, not needing to meet military anything, and only "high security."


And, no, I'm not associated with Intel, Freescale, ARM, or anyone else; I'm a retired engineer with well over thirty years experience designing embedded systems. 

 

jaybus0
User Rank
Author
Re: Raspi
jaybus0   9/20/2013 8:40:53 AM
NO RATINGS
The 80376 was replaced by the 80386EX, which still kept the static core capable uf running at low clock speeds all the way down to halt to save power. But it also kept the 26-bit addressing, so wouldn't be appropriate for re-implementing at a smaller process size without a major update. But I do think it is probably a shrunken older core. I chose the P54C because it has already been worked on for the Single-chip Cloud Computer project and Larrabee.

sw guy
User Rank
Author
Re: Raspi
sw guy   9/18/2013 7:58:49 AM
NO RATINGS
Remember the 80376 processor ?

jaybus0
User Rank
Author
Re: Raspi
jaybus0   9/18/2013 7:10:05 AM
NO RATINGS
I suspect it is one of the P54C-like cores designed for the Single-chip Cloud Computer project or something very similar. 

LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Re: Raspi
LarryM99   9/16/2013 6:11:45 PM
NO RATINGS
It seems to me that it would make sense to strip off legacy support in a product like this. Why carry along MS-DOS compatability and segmented memory models when they are competing with ARMs that have a much cleaner architecture? The x86 has been overdue for cleaning out the attic for quite a while. Does anyone know if that is what they are doing here?

elctrnx_lyf
User Rank
Author
Re: Curious about Potential Packages
elctrnx_lyf   9/14/2013 3:19:59 PM
NO RATINGS
Intel is definitely doing a lot more than what we could actually imagine. So there is still much more to Intel.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Raspi
rick merritt   9/13/2013 3:54:52 PM
NO RATINGS
@Victor: Excellent question. The consensus here is it will be a 486/Pentium class CPU, but Intel is not saying yet.

victortagayun
User Rank
Author
Raspi
victortagayun   9/13/2013 3:01:47 AM
NO RATINGS
Will it have the pricepoint and performance of raspi? Or is it of different league?

Sanjib.A
User Rank
Author
Re: Curious about Potential Packages
Sanjib.A   9/12/2013 10:56:31 PM
NO RATINGS
Happy to hear that this tiny chip could give 486, Pentium kind of performance, that would be great!! Will this be somewhere close to the SoC launched by AMD recently: G-series SoC? Probably having lower performance and features than that?

The part that scares me is "...suggesting it is more of a rushed trial balloon than a nailed-down product and strategy.

I would dare not think about using it if there are no clear strategy and a clear road-map. Any tentative timeline announced for its release?

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed