The life of Pi: Intel to give away Arduino-friendly 'Galileo' tiny-puter Intel is now actively attempting to recruit the maker community to aid it in its battle against ARM. Today at a major gathering of European hardware hackers in Rome, the chip giant announced it has cooked up a Raspberry Pi-style board computer with the blessing of Arduino. The computer is called the Galileo and it sports a …
As a youngster I enjoyed building very simple circuits with the older (or should that be antique), Bread-Board style electronics kits, the ones which came with a printed resistor color-guide (very handy). I later graduated to Varistrip boards, IC sockets and soldering irons, which was a huge step forward. I am gobsmacked at today's equivalent Learn & Play technology. I really ought to spend less time at the Derby & Joan club tea dances and get on with a miss spent golden age. Ah! the memories - time for a beer.
Yup, as a kid I dreamed of being able to readily be able to build stuff you had thought up as easily as you can now.
I have been an arduino junky for a year or so now - you cannae beat em - get em off ebay for 2 quid for an arduino mini pro about the size of 2 10p pieces and you have all the power and IO you need to do pretty much anything you can think of.
Last weekend, I made a sous vide from a 10 quid slow cooker, temp sensor, 240v relay and an arduino.
This weekend I'm gonna automate my house blinds with a few little motors and servos and arduinos.
(I also fly quadcopters based around arduinos though I didn't program them!)
I'd put arduino up there with 3d printing as one of the new disruptive technologies out there.
If you've not tried arduino I'd urge you to give it a try - arduino.cc. All you need to get started is an arduino nano from ebay for 6 quid - that comes with usb and cable - plug it in and get coding. digital in/out, analogue in/out, serial comms, PWM, etc, etc.
So what is it?
It runs "sketches", so is it a more powerful (overly-powerful) Arduino competitor with rather high power requirements
It's got an x86 instruction set, 256MB of DDR3 RAM and PCI, so is it a PC - no mention of windows or Linux
It seems to me to fall between both.
If you're just going to run embedded code with no O/S, there are better, smaller, (probably) cheaper and less power-hungry ways of doing it. If you are going to boot an O/S, there are smaller, more powerful, more capable (e.g. the dual-core 1GHz/1GB, SATA Cubieboard2) and (possibly) cheaper alternatives for that, too.
With either of these propositions, it's going to be the user created support that makes or breaks it. I wonder if anyone would port BeOS/Haiku to it?
The great thing with Arduino is that you can completely control (and understand) the software running on it. There is no operating system or any hidden processes interfering with your programming. As a result, things like communication protocols or real-time data acquisition become trivial. If the Galileo works in a similar fashion and doesn't just emulate the Arduino in software, then it would be a great addition. The description on the Arduino website doesn't really specify much.
He must be dead, he's not on LinkedIn. [Actually, unless things have changed, being dead doesn't seem to stop you being on LinkedIn. Maybe they have an "account removed if not accessed for x months" mechanism now?]
Personally I rather hope Mt Zaks is enjoying a happy retirement, or whatever he fancies.
Have a nice weekend, everyone.
If the Galileo works in a similar fashion and doesn't just emulate the Arduino in software, then it would be a great addition.
The GPIO pins are controlled via an I2C I/O expander, with the I2C bus running at standard speed (100kHz). So
a) there _is_ software inbetween what the sketch assumes is an I/O port and the actual hardware, and
b) bit-banging will only manage to get you a couple 100Hz at most. which is about 1000 times slower than you'd be able to achieve with a real Arduino.
For their next trick, Intel will come out with a super low-powered chip that lacks dedicated math processing circuitry or support for MMX, but is fully compatible with the 80386 instruction set...
Does make me wonder - how small could intel make a 386DX these days? I'd think it could be teeny-tiny.
$60 apparently, although that may just be rumour.
For about $18 including delivery one can get a TP-Link TP403 which is a roughly equivalent ARM board that comes in a nice plastic case and will run off a micro USB phone charger. That's the full commercial price for single quantity. And it's already well supported by a mature binary package Linux distro. No PCIe slot and you would have to break out the soldering iron if you need the GPIO, but it does have on board WiFi.
ISTR I paid about US$10 for an MSP430 development board. It's only sixteen bits at 16MHz, but it idles on 1 uA and has 16K of Flash and an 8-channel 10-bit ADC. Also sports a decent compliment of analog and digital I/O pins, and I've had no trouble using Arduino accessories with it. It won't run Linux, but it's chump change, so even if you just play with it for a couple of evenings and wind up sticking it in the back of a drawer it's still worth it.
Yeah. I'd see it as a non-mobile device competitor or even functional product if they could confirm Linux/Windows support. But for that I'd prefer ~1Ghz for performance.
At £60 1ghz Intel (windows compatible) pc on a board could have it's place in the market. As a "different" programmable board to the pi. Not mobile, but still flexible.
But the pi seems to do so many things better (chip speed, ram, connectivity) and cheaper, and on a lower power requirement. So I see little this intel offering can... offer!
The IO ports are connected via I2C, so they are going to be slow and you only get 20 of them (including the 6 analog ports). There is no video port and it's light on RAM. Performance wise it gets completely trashed by the likes of the Cubbieboard or the UDOO. The UDOO also trashes it on the IO front, having a full Arduino Due on the board allowing for 74 IOs, each directly connected to the processor, plus gigabit Ethernet and WiFi.
Oh, and it needs 3 amps! I don't know what does the equivalent Arduino Due uses, but the Beaglebone Black is under 1A and the Arduino-alikes I use (Atmega or Arm based) are all about 25mA excluding I/O.
Proof, if you needed it, that Intel don't do embedded well.
"Oh, and it needs 3 amps! "
Why do you post things you know nothing of?
I got one this morning at the Rome Maker Faire. Yes the power supply is rated at 3A but the whole thing can run of the USB power. So that 2.5W max.
"that Intel don't do embedded well"
I would agree with that but get your facts right.
"The recommended output rating of the power adapter is 5V, 3 Amp." - from http://www.intel.com/support/galileo/faq.htm
I'm aware that what it draws is - usually - likely less than 3A, but in my experience if you design a system that supplys 500mA to a device that the manufacturer recommends should be given 3A, you're in for a nasty ride.
http://www.glomos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=127
It only uses 3 watts, runs @ 1Ghz with 512Mb of memory, and I can install windows or linux on it...
Oh, and it has an x86 instruction set (with MMX).
Looks like anything Intel can come up with is already done by someone else... and better too...
Exactly. For the few days since the Quark was announced, I've been itching with curiosity, how it compares to the Vortex. And I'll keep on itching for a few more weeks (months?) till I put my hands on the Quark and run nbench on the critter. For the time being, could anyone please publish the contents of /proc/cpuinfo ?
The Vortex boards typically eat something between 2.5 and 5 Watts (between 500 mA and 1 A from a 5V adaptor) depending on Vortex generation, additional chips on the board, the SSD used and CPU load (and OS power saving capabilities). The 5W is a well equipped Vortex86DX board including Z9s graphics at full throttle. The MX/DX2 reportedly need less power. The Vortex SoC contains a programmable clock divider, you can underclock it to 1/8th of the nominal clock - but the undeclocking doesn't achieve much more than what Linux can achieve at full clock, merely by properly applying HLT when idle.
I'd expect the Galileo board to have a similar power consumption.
With switch-mode power supplies (the general cheap stuff on today's market), it's not a good idea to use a PSU or Adaptor whose specced wattage exactly matches your device's consumption. It's advisable to use a PSU that's twice to three times overestimated. Hence perhaps the recommendation to use a 3amp adaptor. Intel knows that these adaptors are crap. You may know them from SoHo WiFi routers/AP's. The router comes with a 2amp adaptor, likely extremely cheap, which only lasts for a year or two, 24/7. Then the elyts bid you farewell. Buy a 3amp adaptor for 10 USD and it will lasts forever.
Also note that Intel may be hinting that you need to reserve some PSU muscle for some "Arduino IO shields".
The DX vortex is made using 90nm lithography, not sure about the MX and DX2 (possibly the same). Makes me wonder what Intel could do, with all its x86 know-how, using a 32/22nm process. Run a 386 at 10 GHz maybe? I've been wondering about this for years before the Quark got announced, and now I'm puzzled - "so little so late".
I've been a Vortex fanboy for a few years - specifically, I'm a fan of the boards made by ICOP ( www.icop.com.tw ). Interestingly, I've seen other Vortex-based boards that are not as good, although using the same SoC. BTW, I don't think even the MX Vortex has MMX - it's more like an overclocked Cyrix 486, but with a well-behaved TSC and CMPXCHG, so it can run Windows XP (not Windows 7, sadly).
Vortex86SX and DX didn't have on-chip graphics, but the ICOP portfolio contains boards with or without VGA. ICOP uses an SIS/XGI Volari Z9s with 32 megs of dedicated video RAM, other board makers use different VGA chips, such as an old Lynx3D with 4 megs of video RAM. The Vortex86MX SoC (and the new Vortex86DX2) does have some VGA on chip, possibly not as powerful as the Z9s. The on-chip VGA uses shared memory (steals a few megs of system RAM). I understand that the system RAM on the Vortex chips is only 16 bits wide, which might be a factor in the CPU core's relatively poor performance.
The Geode has significantly better performance per clock tick than the Vortex86DX. The new DX2 should perform better than the older DX/MX cores (closer to the Geode). I expect the Quark at 400 MHz to be about as fast as an 800MHz Vortex86DX. The "Pascal CRT 200 MHz bug" occurs at around 400 MHz on the Vortex86DX.
The Vortex SoC traditionally contained a dual-channel parallel IDE controller. This is nowadays still useful for ATA Flash drives of various form factors (including CompactFlash), but to attach some new off-the-shelf spinning rust, you need an active SATA/IDE converter... The new DX2 SoC features a native SATA port. Since I guess Vortex86DX, the second IDE channel can alternatively be configured as an SD controller.
Since Vortex86SX, the SoC has about 40 GPIO pins - the boards by ICOP typically have 16 GPIO pins on a connector (with ground and a power rail). The DX/MX/DX2 SoC can even run HW-generated PWM on the GPIO pins (each pin has its own individual PWM config). The only thing it's missing for general tinkering is possibly an on-chip multichannel ADC.
Sice Vortex86SX, the SoC has two EHCI controllers (four ports of USB 2.0 host).
The MX/DX2 have on-chip HDA (audio).
All the Vortex SoC's have an on-chip 100Base-TX Ethernet MAC+PHY (the RDC R6040).
The SX/DX/DX2 have 4+ COM ports, one of them with RS485 auto RX/TX steering capability. (the MX has only 3 COM ports.) All of them have a good old-fashioned LPT (parallel printer port) with EPP/ECP capability, whatever twisted use you may have for that nowadays. Note that all the COM ports and LPT are on chip in the SoC - yet the SoC also has LPC, should the board maker want to expand the legacy stuff with an added SuperIO chip...
In terms of "system architecture feel", the Vortex reminds me of the 486 era. Simple hardware. Might be useful for realtime control (think of RTAI). There's a full-fledged ISA and a basic PCI (able to serve about 3 external devices). The DX2 has two lanes of PCI-e. The SX/DX/MX (not sure about the DX2) doesn't contain an IO/APIC, which means that it's a bit short of IRQ's, considering all the integrated peripherials. Yet all the integrated peripherials work fairly well. I've seen an odd collision or two: the PXE ROM is defunct if you enable the second EHCI, but both the second EHCI and the LAN work fine in Linux if you leave them both enabled (= as long as you don't need to boot from PXE). The BIOS does't provide ACPI if memory serves. All the Vortex-based hardware uses AT-style power.
The SoC doesn't have an APIC, but there's an interesting twist to the (otherwise standard) AT-PIC: the SoC allows you to select edge-triggered or level-triggered logic individually for each interrupt channel. Not that I've ever had any use for that, but it might be interesting for some custom hacks (with a number of devices that need to share a single interrupt).
And, oh, the Vortex boards all have a BIOS, i.e. can boot DOS, various indee bootloaders, and stand-alone bootable tools (think of Memtest86+). I've already mentioned PXE booting. You're free to insert your own bootable disk (SSD or magnetic) and some boards also contain an onboard SPI-based flash drive, which acts like a 4meg floppy. The AMI BIOS in the ICOP boards allows you to configure a number of the SoC's obscure features, and can be accessed via a terminal on RS232 if the board is "headless" (no VGA).
In terms of features, compared to the Vortex, the Galileo board (the Quark?) seems underwhelming. Ahh yes, it's also cheaper... And I understand that it's a first kid in an upcoming family.
When I first read about the Quark, I immediately thought to myself "Vortex is in trouble". Looking at the Galileo, I think "not yet, maybe next time". We have yet to see how the Quark copes on the compatibility front etc., what novel quirks get discovered etc.
Excuse me Intel, but did anyone pass this along to Legal yet? Do not get me wrong but it would seem that they are DIRECTLY infringing on a major companies trademark. I am at a loss of words, I can see a few things about to happen legally.
"Quark" is a large company that competes with Adobe and has been around since the dawn of the computer era. The headquarters is still in Denver Colorado.
I think what everyone is forgetting is that this was designed to be compatible with the existing Arduino shields. Out of the box it's going to have the years of shield development. The Raspberry Pi is still early in it's development of shields yet it's so loved - yes I own one too. None of the other ones have that kind of "support".
The whole deal about the Arduino was that it was ridiculously easy to program (from all three major platforms) and simple enough in concept for anyone with a handful of functioning brain cells to understand.
A bonus was that if you fry the processor, for 4 quid you can pop in a replacement. Also, when you get more experienced, once you've developed your project, you pop out the chip, and stick it on a veroboard with 1 cap, 1 resistor and 1 resonator... and there's your stand-alone widget.
It seems that even the Arduino people are losing the plot and steadily adding complications that in my opinion detract from the KISS principle. Yes, if you want to, you can link up to a computer with any of the serial links or even bit-bang your own version, but there is no need at all to try and build it in and therefore reduce flexibility.
Just because this can be done is not the point; the point is, is it better than an 'equivalent' ARM board? I don't think so!
It runs crappy x86 instructions and will be expensive based on Intels' pricing model, what's to like?
On board flash means it can be bricked - rendered unusable if the hardwired, soldered on flash chip is loaded with bad code or is corrupted.
The RaspberryPi has an advantage here as it has no onboard, hardwired, fixed soldered on flash - the storage is provided by a removable SD card.
So for this, Intel based board - and indeed any other board with built-in flash - this clearly is a design mistake given that these boards are aimed at people who want to experiment.
>On board flash means it can be bricked - rendered unusable if the hardwired,
>soldered on flash chip is loaded with bad code or is corrupted.
I can't be arsed to look at the specs for this chip but... modern SoCs have a first stage bootloaders built into a ROM in the chip. Usually they can boot from serial, NAND or SD card.. And then there's usually JTAG too but booting uboot from serial and then uploading the data for the NAND via ethernet and flashing it is totally possible and I know of vendors that use that method to flash totally blank boards off of the production line..
Put short; Vendors have thought about this. You are wrong.
>The RaspberryPi has an advantage here as it has no onboard, hardwired, fixed soldered on flash -
>the storage is provided by a removable SD card.
What drives the MMC controller to boot from SD.. a rom built into the SoC... a "hardwired" rom in the SoC.
>So for this, Intel based board - and indeed any other board with built-in flash
Boards with built-in flash are built with the flash completely blank in most cases. So they are built as bricks.
> - this clearly is a design mistake given that these boards are
>aimed at people who want to experiment.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Would those who have downvoted Daniel care to explain what's wrong with his picture? Or those who have evidence that Daniel might be right, would you care to chip in?
The picture Daniel describes is pretty much as I understood it, but then I've been at arm's length or more from this business for ten years or so, and it is therefore entirely possible that things have moved backwards, or that Intel haven't kept up with the rest of the business, or possibly both. I'm interested either way (yes I'm strange like that).
Thanking you.
> Would those who have downvoted Daniel care to explain
He wrote something that could be construed as criticism of the RPi.
Around here that's an automatic downvoted from the Look Mum, I can make a LED flash on and off brigade. (As mother silently weeps into a hanky: 14 years of education and 10s of thousands of £££'s in raising the child, all for that ...).
Even worse, in the very next thread he intimates that something else could possibly be better.
"something else could possibly be better."
Unbeliever, off with his head.
On the other hand, sometimes it's good to remember that whenever you see "better" you should think "better at [????]". Is a Porsche better than a Transit? Depends what you want to do.
RPi may not be perfect but it does a job in technical terms and it's certainly done a job in terms of building a community and momentum, and that was a big part of the wishlist. The stuff you can do with an ARM SoC these days is just amazing, whether it's an RPi or something else. Choose the right one, or accept compromises. Good, fast, cheap: pick two (if you're lucky).
If we want folk to start to learn and understand engineering again, part of that should involve learning that one size does not necessarily fit all. That applies as much to RPi everywhere as it does to Windows everywhere.
Daniel, thanks for your reply. You mention ROM not flash - being ROM this is not corruptible. But the board in the article does have on board flash - which would be corruptible.
From what you are saying is it possible then to unbrick a board like this one?
I didn't downvote you by the way.
All modern SoCs have some ROM for very low level bootloaders... Older platforms where you had a lump of flash in mapped in memory might have have had their flash burnt before mounting or via JTAG (indirect flash programming can be really handy if slow..). Those older designs are brickable because the low level stuff is expected to be in that external flash but newer SoCs boot off of storage that isn't always memory mapped so it has been moved to ROM inside the chip itself. Even on those old designs the essential "wipe this and say bye bye to booting" parts like uboot should be in the boot block area of the flash to avoid the bricking issue...
Either way the pi is no better than any modern SoC (as they all do the same thing) and in fact probably worse because you need to agree to NDAs to get details on the boot process.
If you need this sort of performance buy a BBB already... Why not a Raspberry Pi you ask;
Limited IO, Everything is under NDA etc etc. The BBB is $20 more but you get tons of GPIO, tons of UARTs, I2C, SPI, GPMC, a 7 channel ADC etc and you get 2 PRUs which you can use to do simple Arduino-style tasks with for almost free. For the Pi you would have to buy that insanely poorly designed Gertboard to get anywhere near that.
The Pi community and the Arduino have one big thing in common; Instead of just buying the right tool for the job like a more powerful Cortex M? board or something like the BBB they insist on hacking loads of crap onto their existing hardware and in the end spend many times more money.
Yes the tre is a much more sensible idea. I'm not sure why it needs the AVR to be honest as the Sitara has two PRUs on board.. But you just have to look at the massive double row female headers and the Arduino headers to see that it's a far better thought out board.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
