Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/could-intel-disrupt-the-mcu-industry.6773/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Could intel disrupt the mcu industry ?

I

ippisl

Guest
Intel has released a new mcu.

Intel® Quark? Microcontroller D1000: Datasheet - $2-3 depending on volume.

In general nothing unique about this chip. it has a relatively lot of peripherals and the analog is nice - but it's expensive - and that's what counts in mcu's.

So i wonder - can intel win in mcu's ? does it have a unique technology that can help in mcu's ?

Also since they are less beholden to old products and revenues in the sector, they can just cut prices - price differently(for example not segment according to memory) ,etc.

And a relevant question - i know infineon has a 40nm cortex-m0 mcu , with 16KB-200KB flash /16KB ram. am i correct to assume it costs a few cents to make and a few cents to test such a chip ? and you're manufacturing costs actually comes down to package costs ? So them pricing it $1/10K is just arbitrary - it could theoretically may as well sell for half/third that given the cheapest package ?
 
I'm sure someone will say it so I'll be the first: It's not the part so much as the ecosystem of that part. I doubt the Quark part fits in any traditional ecosystem, like Infineon or Freescale automotive parts. But Quark makes more sense when you look at Windows Embedded applications, in the post-Windows XP world.

Let me ask you something: Have you ever tried to use an ATM running Windows XP? Those beasts are still out there. Running Pentium IVs, fans blasting away in the summer heat. There are certain applications, like ATMs, or digital signs, that just seem to require Windows, often Windows XP.

Now I think Atom "E" parts are the solution for signs and ATMs more so than Quarks. I think Quark is for SBCs to power even simpler devices, that don't have a UI, but run Windows Embedded. I'm not really sure what those devices will do, or what version of Windows. But my point is this: If your ecosystem is Windows Embedded, Atom and Quark are your parts. Infineon and Freescale have their own ecosystems and probably won't be too threatened by Quark.
 
Actually Quark is not supposed to be an MCU: it is actually a Pentium-equivalent CPU running at about 400-700MHz.
 
It looks like Intel has spent a lot of time thinking about the low power angle on this chip. Also it seems to have excellent support for a wide variety of concurrent attached sensors/peripherals. My initial thought is also about the development environment and ecosystem. I'm going to dig into this a bit more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top