Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #1391 > unrolled thread

Intel's Galileo features Quark: low-power x86 chip

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Intel's Galileo features Quark: low-power x86 chip RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-09 18:38 +0000
    Re: Intel's Galileo features Quark: low-power x86 chip Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-03-10 13:37 +0000

#1391 — Intel's Galileo features Quark: low-power x86 chip

From the «F00Fed me in the invalid operand» department:
Title: Intel Galileo Review
Author: Rob Zwetsloot
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 08:19:04 -0500
Link: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/reviews/intel-galileo-review

Follow @LinuxUserMag[1]

Technical specs

Operating system: Yocto Project-based Linux
Processor: Single-Core 400MHz Intel Quark X1000
Memory: 256MB RAM
Dimensions: 107mm x 74mm x 23mm
Weight: 50g (excluding PSU)
GPIO: 14x Digital Input/Output Pins, 6x Analogue Input Pins
Networking: 1x Wired 10/100 Ethernet, Optional PCIe Wireless
Expansion: USB 2.0 Host, Micro-SD Card

Review

Intel’s keynote speech at the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this year was
heavy on talk of embedded platforms, largely in response to the growing
success of Cambridge-based ARM and its low-power designs. The highlight was
the launch of the Quark processor, an extremely low-power design which
nevertheless offers full 32-bit x86 capabilities.

The Galileo is the first product to feature the Quark available to the
general public – and, in keeping with the company’s recent MinnowBoard, it’s
fully open hardware. It’s also Intel’s first product to feature full
certification as an Arduino-compatible product – on which more later.
[image 2][2]The Quark chip offers full x86 compatibility, equivalent to an
original Pentium running at 400MHz.

The heart of the Galileo is a single-core Quark running at 400MHz. The chip
is based heavily on the original Pentium architecture – so much so, in fact,
that the Linux kernel warns that it suffers from the F00F, or invalid operand
with locked CMPXCHG8B instruction, bug which otherwise went away when people
moved on from the Pentium Pro.

Errata aside, the use of the Pentium architecture offers a familiar
experience for programmers dipping their toes into embedded programming and
gives the Galileo the ability to run a fully-fledged Linux kernel. A
customised distribution is provided pre-loaded onto NAND flash as standard,
but is extremely cut down; a slightly more expansive version can be loaded
from a micro-SD card.

As a compact computer that could beat the Raspberry Pi at its own game, the
Galileo isn’t terribly tempting. Aside from being twice the price, its
performance is poor – a test involving compressing a 10MB file on a Raspberry
Pi took 8.3s compared to a woeful 25.9s on the Galileo – and it lacks video
or audio output, with the 3.5mm jack instead offering RS232-level serial
connectivity.

The Galileo isn’t designed as a general-purpose machine, however: the
packaging, featuring a stylised image of the eponymous polymath wearing
somewhat anachronistic sunglasses, asks buyers what they will make –
highlighting Intel’s targeting of the maker community.

It’s here that the Galileo’s Arduino certification comes to the fore. The
design features pin headers fully compatible with the Shield add-on boards
designed for the Arduino Uno family of microcontroller boards, along with
supporting circuitry which allows the Quark to communicate with said Shields.
It’s a clever move, and comes with the promise of perfect compatibility and a
software support package which includes a modified version of the familiar
Arduino integrated development environment.

Sadly, there’s a fly in the ointment: the support circuitry for Arduino
compatibility is bandwidth-starved, and the performance is exceedingly slow.
A Shield based around audio output to a piezoelectric buzzer failed to
produce the expected hiss during our testing, instead offering a sickly
cracking sound as the system failed to run anywhere near the speed of a true
Arduino.

It’s easy to see why Intel didn’t opt for the more traditional method of
embedding an ATmega co-processor alongside the Quark to provide better
performance: the Galileo is all about proving that the Quark is a
one-size-fits-all alternative to both ARM CPUs and microcontroller units in
the embedded market. Sadly, at least in this initial implementation, its
performance suggests otherwise.

That’s not to say the Galileo doesn’t have its upsides. An on-board Ethernet
port provides handy network connectivity without the need to add extra
hardware, and the system can act as a USB host. The underside even provides a
mini-PCI Express slot, initially designed for use with Intel’s wireless
network cards to add cheap Wi-Fi connectivity to designs but likely to find
further uses in the near future.

Verdict

4/5

The Galileo is an impressive development platform for those interested in the
Quark, but despite its Arduino certification fails to keep up with the
performance of its much cheaper microcontroller-based rivals. A lack of audio
and video output also limits its flexibility compared to the Raspberry Pi, to
which a true Arduino can be connected.

Follow @LinuxUserMag[1]

Links:
[1]: http://twitter.com/LinuxUserMag (link)
[2]: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/galileo-front.jpg (link)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1422

On 2014-03-09, RS Wood wrote:
> From the «F00Fed me in the invalid operand» department:
> Title: Intel Galileo Review
> Author: Rob Zwetsloot
> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 08:19:04 -0500
> Link: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/reviews/intel-galileo-review

I work with embedded systems.  I love that Intel is getting involved
in the dev board market, and I especially love the open hardware.  I
don't think they've found their niche yet, though.  As with the
Minnowboard, the Galileo seems to have hit the awkward spot between
a BeagleBone and an Atom board.

Between the BeagleBone Black, an ATMega/Arduino, and a Raspberry Pi,
I'm quite content with my current selection.  I'm an ARM fan, but
not blind to the advantages of x86.  If I want x86, though, I'm
likely to just go up to an Atom board or other Mini-ITX SBC.

Here's hoping Intel keeps pushing open hardware dev boards and
manages to either cut their price in half or double their
performance.  I'm really curious to see what they can do.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web