@iniewski: your comment is on the right track -I think the answer to Intel's intentions of buying Fulcrum is both! Intel would be certainly interested in asynchronous processor core tech for lower latencies but the market opportunity with Fulcrum's FocalPoint switches (for which Intel was one the early NIC OEM's) is also appealing.
Fulcrum in Asynchronous went a similar route as Celoxica with C to Gates - first technology - then concentrate on product.
Asynch can achieve a new speed step, so Achronix and Fulcrum fit this - compared to the incremental speed of smaller geometries. Even if only used in buses and peripherals.
Looking forward to implementation - e.g. asynch on-chip buses.
So it's now only a question of time before Intel also picks up Aquantia. A perfect fit with Fulcrum for the data center plan.
Now, that said, we shouldn't forget Intel's previous spree into a similar albeit back then smaller market when they picked up Level One and that Danish company paying billions for both like 12-14 years ago...
Some years ago, Intel gave away the IXP network processors section because they wanted to focus on PCs. Now they would have been major leaders in network embedded devices and they wouldn't need to buy other companies.
It is not signal shift but back to the future Dylan...ten years ago Intel was acquiring optical networking companies but later dumped that IC Internet portfolio (there is still design group in Vancouver left that was doing networking design but today they work on memory sub-systems)...Intel also was developing and selling network processors...so there is a long history of Intel trying to get into Internet/data centers, usually without much success...so this acquisition must be about something else as other speculate above...Kris
Seconding what JMUNN said.
I remember back when Fulcrum was started--they advertised that they had a method of designing asynchronous logic state machines, including their own design toolsets. This was touted as how they were getting such low latency in their chips. Now they don't talk about it at all. (Trade secret?)
I wouldn't be surprised if this is what Intel is after and they don't even care about the switch chips.
@JMUNN-It's a good question. I thought about that. A lot of people felt there was more to that Achronix deal than Intel let on, and the asynchronous nature of Achronix' technology seened appealing to Intel. There may be a thread there.
Are they going after Asynchronous IP and/or patents? They are working with Achronix FPGA which is also asynchronous to be their fab. Is this an attempt to someday move to an asynchronous processor core development?
Actually, I think Intel is over billing this in its press release (Gee, that's never happened before!) The company has long had a secondary business selling Ethernet chips and adapters. The Fulcrum addition butresses that business nicely, but I suspect they will still play second fiddle in Ethenet to companies such as Broadcom.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.