I think that the move of Intel is this direction is very strategic. Security might be a reason but I believe it is by far not the main one. WHen you look at the market trend and the evolution of process technology it is clear that 22nm will cost a lot in dev and will need very high volume to make it economically viable. One solution is to create a scale effect in markets where it doesnt't exist, and for this FPGA is a good soluton to make one die fitting several applications. On top of this Xilinx already announced avalability in 2011 of FPGA with 2 cortex A9 inside meaning chips which will be perfectly suitable to be used in mass market application as at hte end the gap in cost between a pure asic approach and a FPGA could not be so high with a much faster time to market for FPGA approach. Taking all of this into acount I wouldn't be surprise that the next step will be availability of FPGA with Atom inside from Achronix in order for intel to get ground on this market. From a pure strategic point of view I think as well that Intel shouldn't buy Achronix at leat for now as it is better for them to be seen as a foundary instead of front competitor to Xilinx and Altera.
Of all the conjectures, like DAN's best, but haven't seen anyone mention Intel's new direction into....security. Intel is crazy like a fox, here.
Intel stands to make $$$ if it can tout a rock-solid "silicon to software" security solution. It just bought a firm for software, what about the former -- silicon?
Huh? "Secure Silicon"? To a US Govt Security type, "secure" means "Made in USA".
And these days, the biggest customer in the American market is the government's security apparatus.
I see dollars and sense in this Intel move.
I will agree what dylan.mcgrath. There is really no point for Intel to get back to FPGA business to compete with Altera and Xilinx. I doubt it will be a winning battle for Intel even it has stack of cash in hand. Intel just had no good tracking record to win business from a mature market not related to CPU business. Their CPU centric view limits their vision and development strategy. Plus, it is not much of silicon anymore in FPGA business. Software becomes so important in this business. It will takes Intel years to catch up. I doubt Intel will go that route.
What my guess is that Intel is eventually going to either license this IP or buy Achronix out. At Achronix size, buyout might be a good choice. They will NOT roll out FPGA. But Intel will add FPGA as co-processor next to its x86 processor to improve its programmability and power. To make support simple, Intel might provide tailor different sets of FPGA program to different markets so end user doesn't have to worry about FPGA at all. This will help Intel target multiple markets with single tape out and not worry about all FPGA tool supports. Xilinx and Altera licensed ARM CPU to put next to their own FPGA. Intel is just starting opposite direction but end products will be similar.
I am cursed with a long memory.
I recall that Intel was the main fab for Altera in the early days (mid-80s) and even had second source rights and competed with Altera for EPLD business. In the mid-90s they SOLD their PLD biz and own R&D (some of it very good too) to Altera.
Maybe others in Intel are also cursed with long memories and miss the old days; it could be just a hobby. Does such a small announcment have to fit into a strategy?
Intel couldn't care less about the capacity Achronix might "potentially" bring to the party if it ever does. As a matter of fact Intel probably couldn't care less about the capacity an Altera or Xilinx would be able to drive either. Also, if Intel wanted to get into the FPGA business it could easily buy Altera or Xilinx outright. There has to be something else. The processes Intel develops aren't really optimized for general purpose logic nor FPGAs that require as many metal layers as possible for density optimization. The only angle there may be is for max performance with min power. Yet, it is not clear that Achronix really demonstrated any meaningful performance while minimizing power...to be followed.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.