Intel Quark architecture, "1/10th" the power use of Atom

[Vesku]

Intel is very serious about gaining in the very low power market. Will have to see actual power numbers but it sounds like their version of ARM's Cortex M-series.

http://hothardware.com/News/Intel-D...s-Quark-X1000-SoC-Open-Architecture-at-IDF13/

Cortex M-series:

http://arm.com/products/processors/cortex-m/index.php?fullsite=yes

 

[Idontcare]

Dang that is one tiny chip.

In yet another big announcement, Krzanich then introduced a new line of low-power SoCs, dubbed Quark X1000. According to Krzanich, Quark X1000 is 1/5 the size of current Atom processors and consumes only 1/10 of the power. Quark X1000 is also fully synthesizable, which gives Intel’s and potential partners the ability to incorporate another company’s IP into the chip, should they so choose. A complete reference design motherboard featuring a Quark X1000 was shown as well.

Fully synthesized? Nice. If Intel gets big into fully synthesizable circuits then they will do for synthesis tools what they did for computational lithography, and everyone will benefit from Intel's push for solid and reliable software design tools.

I wonder if this is one of those products that Krzanich was referring to when he said Intel needs to stop trying to optimize and perfect every little detail before getting initial products out the door?

 

[ShintaiDK]

x86 will rule the world...

 

[bullzz]

"If Intel gets big into fully synthesizable circuits then they will do for synthesis tools what they did for computational lithography, and everyone will benefit from Intel's push for solid and reliable software design tools"

could u pls explain this in english. thanks

 

[cbn]

I remember a couple years ago or so, Intel bought a company which had its own processor design. As I remember correctly the acquired cpu designs were aimed at very small appliances.

Does anyone remember the name of that company Intel bought? (I am thinking this "quark soc" is at least partly coming from that acquisition)

 

[NTMBK]

Fully synthesisable, and willing to integrate 3rd party IP? That's got to be a bummer for AMD, their semicustom business was the only bright spot in their portfolio. Still, I guess Quark and Jaguar are going to be in completely different leagues of performance (and power consumption).

Smart move from Intel, anyway. Drum up some semicustom business to use up that fab capacity.

EDIT: Ah, the "integrate 3rd party IP" seems like the journalist's interpretation, not a message from Intel. Seems fairly likely though.

 

[cbn]

Quark X1000 is 1/5 the size of current Atom processors and consumes only 1/10 of the power.

So each Quark x1000 processor core would be 1.12 mm2 if built on Intel's 32nm if I am reading this correctly.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You link core sizes. Not CPU sizes.

 

[NTMBK]

You link core sizes. Not CPU sizes.

From Anandtech:

Update: Intel has sent over a quick clarification on size; the size comparisons are meant to be core-to-core rather than SoC-to-SoC. Specifically compared to the 22nm Silvermont core.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7305/intel-announces-quark-soc-a-tiny-soc-for-tiny-devices

 

[seitur]

Still he compared to Clovertrail and not to Silvermount, so comparision and estimate is still incorrect. I wonder who else will enter ultra-small / very-low power market. ARM? AMD? Apple? Samsung? Qualcomm?

 

[cbn]

You link core sizes. Not CPU sizes.

Yes, the processor cache (for example) would increase die sizes. But it does look like the comparison was made for the cpu core only.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/10/4715514/intel-quark-internet-of-things-wearable-computing

Update: An Intel rep clarified that it's the Quark core — not the Quark chip — whose size and power consumption were being compared to Atom. In other words, the actual CPU core inside a Quark chip is one-fifth the size and consumes one-tenth the power of an Atom CPU core. Performance is another matter. Quark is aimed at markets where power consumption and form factor take priority, according to an Intel representative.

 

[cbn]

From Anandtech:

Update: Intel has sent over a quick clarification on size; the size comparisons are meant to be core-to-core rather than SoC-to-SoC. Specifically compared to the 22nm Silvermont core.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7305/intel-announces-quark-soc-a-tiny-soc-for-tiny-devices

Thanks, I did not see that.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I see the update, thanks

And the compare is to 22nm Silvermont. Thats simply amazing.

 

[NTMBK]

Any bets on what the architecture is like? I'm going to call "tweaked Pentium".

 

[cbn]

And the compare is to 22nm Silvermont. Thats simply amazing.

Do we know what the Silvermont Atom cpu core die size is?

I'm wondering if the Silvermont cpu core might actually be larger than the Clovertrail atom cpu core ......if the Clovertrail atom core were shrunk down to 22nm.

 

[StrangerGuy]

x86 will rule the world...

Yup, can't wait for an x86 to run stuff like my air conditioner, washing machine, microwave oven etc. Clearly worth all the design and validation effort to save like 1W over those terrible ARM chips we are now using.

 

[SiliconWars]

I'm wondering if the Silvermont cpu core might actually be larger than the Clovertrail atom cpu core ......if the Clovertrail atom core were shrunk down to 22nm.

I wouldn't imagine they'd be a whole lot different even going from in-order to out-of-order, dropping HT might save a little bit of area as well but only what, 5-10%? Not even sure if HT adds to the core size or not.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yup, can't wait for an x86 to run stuff like my air conditioner, washing machine, microwave oven etc. Clearly worth all the design and validation effort to save like 1W over those terrible ARM chips we are now using.

Those appliances dont even use ARM in the first place.

 

[monstercameron]

Those appliances dont even use ARM in the first place.

I dont think you can speak in such absolutes...

 

[SiliconWars]

Those appliances dont even use ARM in the first place.

Pretty sure they do, Cortex-M for appliances.

 

[NTMBK]

Yup, can't wait for an x86 to run stuff like my air conditioner, washing machine, microwave oven etc. Clearly worth all the design and validation effort to save like 1W over those terrible ARM chips we are now using.

I want my coffee maker running Windows dammit!

 

[ShintaiDK]

Pretty sure they do, Cortex-M for appliances.

What, 1 out of a 1000? But feel free to supply a list. Specially considering the first one was prototype demoed in 2011 for washing machines, and the first one using it in 2012.

 

[SiliconWars]

What, 1 out of a 1000? But feel free to supply a list.

How many microwaves, washing machines etc are there in the world?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Pretty sure they do, Cortex-M for appliances.

If Cortex-M or some other similar chip is used in current products, it's clear performance isn't an important criteria to begin with. Quark make even less sense for industrial equipment that Intel talked about since those things are most likely have power consumption in the kilowatt+ ranges and requires extensive validation. As a designer would you switch to x86 just for the sake of x86? Somebody here just can't see past the "more performance, less power = guaranteed win" goggles.

 

[SiliconWars]

If Cortex-M or some other similar chip is used in current products, it's clear performance isn't an important criteria to begin with. Quark make even less sense for industrial equipment that Intel talked about since those things are most likely have power consumption in the kilowatt+ ranges and requires extensive validation. As a designer would you switch to x86 just for the sake of x86? Somebody here just can't see past the "more performance, less power = guaranteed win" goggles.

Yes you are correct. These devices are simply about cost, the power and performance is already far beyond anything that matters.

The actual revenue to Intel would be nothing, but what they can get out of it is taking some sales away from ARM, and of course they'll be using up spare capacity that they have lying around...

That's Intel's problem now, they keep making smaller chips but they have far more capacity than they can now use, so they have to find new ways to use it, even if it's zero-margin. Development costs are almost certainly going to be higher than profits, but at least that's still better than having fabs running at half capacity.