Intel Quark / Curie vs PIC32, ARM etc... - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 10:59:12 am
content: How do the Intel Quark series or the Curie series compare to the other 32 bit offerings in the industry notably ARM, PIC32 ...Would there be any good reason to shift to Intel's offerings ....My criteria for comparison is the following...1. Good range of analog peripherals ADC, DAC, and other unique offerings that microchip has like CTMU, Analog comparators ...2. Good range of digital peripherals like Timers, Input Capture, Output Compare, PWM...3. USB, Ethernet... etc..4. Decent computational power.5. Decent power consumption ...Would like to hear your views on these...TIA

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 11:22:27 am
content: IMHO, by far and away the best reason NOT to choose an Intel processor is ready availability of data sheets, technical support and samples. It's nothing to do with the silicon itself.Can you easily obtain data and parts? If so, then it makes sense to compare chips. If not, then personally I wouldn't waste any time trying; I'd go with an ARM device instead, depending (of course) on your definitions of "good", "decent" and so on.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 11:32:27 am
content: I just checked but the Quarks are available from Farnell (Element14).

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 11:36:46 am
content: Intel's site is clearly not designed as regular microcontroller's site. You have to jump through like 4-5 pages to get a PDF (which they first open inside the page!). Also, their site is broken on Firefox, I had to use Chrome. Anyway knowing Intel I'm glad it's not under NDA.From my initial investigation, they have 4 series:- Quark SoC X1000- Quark D1000- Quark D2000- Quark SE C1000The X1000 is a SoC and actually a 400MHz computer. These chips should compete with the PIC32MZ (although it is a bit slower in processing power) and Cortex m7 chips, probably running some kind of embedded linux. Problem: they cost 50 euros each instead of the usual ~20euro BOM for a complete embedded computer. Upside: they are a small board you solder onto your product, which can make 50 euro seem cheap.The D1000 seems like a cortex m0+ competitor with an proprietary/unknown CPU and complicated memory architecture (like 4 different memory regions for a small chip).It has a 12-bit ADC. No DAC.Only 2 timers, no PWM or capture to speak of.Only 1 SPI master and 1 SPI slave.Only 1 I2C.2 UARTsSleep current down to 1.5uA which seems OK, wake up time 2.0us which seems OK. Voltage range down to 1.62V which seems low enough for direct battery operation.The D2000 is more of the same. Again like like 4 different memory regions for such a simple device, same amount of peripherals but this time with 2 DMA channels, and a whopping 2 PWM channels. Don't known about capture pins.Both of these series lack USB, ethernet, CAN.All in all I think feature wise it's under offerings of competitor cortex m0+'s or the simplest PIC32s, and then you also have to go through much trouble to use them:1) If you're already in the ARM or PIC regime, you have the toolchain, the debug cables and tools at hand. You probably need yet another Intel cable or devboard.2) Chips available through limited set of suppliers, of which only Mouser is most accessible by most of us.3) The chips are not particularly cheap. 4.21 euro in 1 qty? And still 2.73 euro in 4000 quantity? Go look up what that can buy you in ARM land. Much more, like STM32F3 series.4) Upgrade paths? Little. If you outgrown a small m0+ or PIC32 you can upgrade to a bigger chip. With this you're stuck, need to change platforms, port all your peripheral code, etc.Intel only offers the C1000 which is a much different beast. 32MHz x86 chip that does have a nicer amount of peripherals - like USB - but comes in a 144 pin BGA and costs 11 euro each in quantity (Ouch).Not sure why anyone would use that, aside from the x86 selling point. The x1000 would seem most interesting to me.. basically an embedded x86 system with PCI-e 2.0 and DDR3.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 12:16:53 pm
content: You'd need a pretty good reason to go for a relative newcomer in this space when there are are already so many well-established options.Seems Intel have been trying to get into embedded for decades and haven't really succeeded yet - I'd be concerned about long-term availability if it fails to get sufficient traction.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 12:25:47 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on October 23, 2016, 12:16:53 pmIntel have had a number of successes in embedded processing over the last 4 decades, but they keep walking away from them. That's why its risky to choose Intel now. The 8048 had a strong market. Intel walked away early, and left that market to others. Intel walked away from the 8051 just as it was really starting to grow, and its still an important core. The 8096, 80196 and other more advanced embedded parts had considerable success for a time, and Intel walked away.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 12:29:01 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on October 23, 2016, 12:16:53 pmYou are forgetting Intel came up with the 8051 and before that the 8048. The latter was used in every PC and PC keyboard until USB came around! And lets not forget you can find x86/x88 microcontrollers in various electronics (I've seen them in hard drives for example). All in all they must have sold billions of their microcontrollers. IMHO it is more accurate to say Intel has lost the embedded market a couple of decades ago.edit: As coppice noted: Intel seems to lack the patience to grow a new business. IIRC Intel acquired several companies in the past decades and either killed them or sold them off again because they didn't know what to do with them.

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 12:37:31 pm
content: Quote from: hans on October 23, 2016, 11:36:46 amThe core can best be described as a legacy-free x86. No different operating modes, linear memory, simplified instruction set. Also no MMU or FPU. The programmer's reference manual is available. The memory architecture is very similar to most other MCUs. Boot ROM, code flash, data flash, RAM and peripherals mapped into a single, linear address space.QuoteThe D2000 uses a different CPU (Pentium architecture, but doesn't have an FPU).

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 12:46:30 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on October 23, 2016, 12:16:53 pmIntel at least used to take embedded systems and availability seriously. Eg. the 80186 was manufactured from 1982 to 2007. However I don't think even they know what their long-term plans are, and if they can't get a major design win for one of their current offerings, how long are they going to stick with it?

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 12:54:17 pm
content: Its interesting to read all the gamut of answers ...hans had saidQuoteI'm amazed that Intel did eventually make a 400Mhz processor from what I read from the datasheets (i must admit I only read about the D2000) it is a32Mhzprocessor.Evenhttp://www.cnx-software.com/2015/11/06/intel-unveils-three-new-micro-controllers-for-iot-quark-d1000-quark-d2000-and-quark-se/corroborates it.Also Intel has recently launched a $15 board ashttp://www.pcworld.com/article/3055372/internet-of-things/intel-on-the-cheap-chip-maker-ships-15-iot-developer-board.htmlsays and then it has a tie up with Arduino and made a new board with them I don't remember the name off hand.Peripheral wise the devices seem to be weak compared to the offerings of ARM / PIC etc.. but I think based on their website Intel is targeting IOT, automotive and wearable devices... Probably these sectors don't need those kind of peripherals.The other interesting thing about some devices is a unique pattern matching engine that they have don't have much detail about this though...The D2000 seems to be priced @ USD4 / pc on Mouser...I agree that at the moment ARM / PIC are lightyears ahead in terms of MHz/MIPS/peripherals .... I just wonder why would Intel want to enter such a highly competitive sector with devices that don't stand up to the existing competition..What would be the advantages of x86 architecture that these quarks have would it mean that I can easily reuse code written for the PC on to the quark?

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 01:57:08 pm
content: There are 2 interesting features for the Intel Quark from their websiteQuoteHowever the SE C1000 runs at USD14 /pc at Mouser.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 02:04:25 pm
content: QuoteI doubt that to be the case. Even the newer CMx chips aren't that much faster in terms of MIPS/MHz vs. 8051.Plus, the real comparison should be getting a job done within a given time frame. Being a CISC chip has its advantages there.QuoteOnly Intel can answer that. I think they are hedging their bets for the future. Also, going into ARM's territory can help deter ARM from going into Intel's territory. An offence that's really a defensive play.

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 02:06:38 pm
content: The sensor subsystem is a Synopsys ARC core, but I don't know how it's exposed (ie. can you run your own code on it, or are you limited to prepackaged blocks supplied by Intel).

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 02:28:23 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on October 23, 2016, 02:04:25 pmYeah, I should have been clearer there I was more trying to compare peripherals in this case eg. peripherals on on ARM cortex / PIC32MX vs Intel quark D2000Perhaps no USB, Ethernet etc. no Floating Point Hardware support like the STM32F4 would be a reason to worry about for anyone wanting to make the switch.

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 02:38:11 pm
content: Here is a good review of the D2000 quark microcontroller from another forum by user JMGhttp://forums.parallax.com/discussion/comment/1371854/#Comment_1371854Quote

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 03:56:05 pm
content: It would be interesting to know if there are any figures available regarding who is the largest selling vendor of 32bit microcontrollers.If i'm correct probably Microchip leads the 8bit microcontroller sales.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 04:01:49 pm
content: QuoteMarket share data is widely available.The trick is to define "vendor" and "32bit microcontrollers". Generally speaking, ARM wins by a large shot. The usual suspects, LPC, TI, and ST are players in the ARM market. Outside of that, Renesas and Freescale are huge.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2016, 04:26:58 pm
content: Quote from: ZeroResistance on October 23, 2016, 03:56:05 pmYou could have taken 10 seconds to Google "global MCU market shares" and found that even now that Atmel's share has been added to Microchip's, they are well behind the market leader for 8 bit MCUs and behind for MCUs in total.

author: autobot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2016, 03:33:40 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on October 23, 2016, 02:04:25 pm

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2016, 11:54:14 pm
content: QuoteOk; I'll bite. Where?I haven't found any register-level documentation for the Curie module in the year since I bought my first "Arduino 101" (that's the Arduino board with the Curie module that people have mentioned. At $30 for a BTLE-enabled Arduino board, it's not a bad deal.)I've found the marketing-heavy "fact sheet", and I've found the (loosely speaking) "data sheet" that has physical specifications, but nothing on how to program the beast, register descriptions, the ARC IOP core (or how it intereacts with the x86), or other features.(Arduino sketches apparently run on the ARC core, in conjunction with some "OS" code on the x86. The OS code has been publised...)

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 06:06:24 am
content: Quote from: westfw on October 25, 2016, 11:54:14 pmIf I remember correctly theIntel Curiemodule features theIntel Quark SE C1000 microcontrollerhave you checked out their website for the relevant docs, the datasheet of that microcontroller should be available.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 08:38:56 am
content: QuoteAh; yes, that is helpful. It doesn't say much of anything about the ARC core, though.

author: Ice-Tea
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 09:29:08 am
content: Farnell carries them and the have the full datasheet (950 pages of pure fun) attached

author: ZeroResistance
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 09:59:50 am
content: Wish there was a way to bookmark certain answers these gems would soon get lost and other's will be unable to find it.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 10:09:25 am
content: While back a company decided to build a board based on the AMD Geode, because it was new and stuff. The Geode became obsolete before the board design was finished.I would never touch Intel, AMD, or the newcomer Samsung, for embedded system, for any serious business.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 10:52:00 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 26, 2016, 10:26:26 amSo the SOM can go out of production before you can do anything. No thanks.If Toradex or any reputable manufacturer, with compatible boards and operating systems will make a board based on it, maybe.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 10:53:00 am
content: Aldebaran Nao robots used the Geodes, so maybe they snagged them all?I remember playing with them when I was in the University..