Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Announces Atom E3900 Series - Goldmont for the Internet of Things (anandtech.com)

Posted by msmash on from the for-connected-things dept.

Intel has announced the Atom E3900 series. Based upon the company's latest generation Goldmont Atom CPU core, the E3900 series will be Intel's most serious and dedicated project yet for the IoT market. AnandTech adds: So what does an IoT-centric Atom look like? By and large, it's Broxton and more. At its core we're looking at 2 or 4 Goldmont CPU cores, paired with 12 or 18 EU configurations of Intel's Gen9 iGPU. However this is where the similarities stop. Once we get past the CPU and GPU, Intel has added new features specifically for IoT in some areas, and in other areas they've gone and reworked the design entirely to meet specific physical and technical needs of the IoT market. The big changes here are focused on security, determinism, and networking. Security is self-evident: Intel's customers need to be able to build devices that will go out into the field and be hardened against attackers. Bits and pieces of this are inerieted from Intel's existing Trusted Execution Technology, while other pieces, such as boot time measuring, are new. The latter is particularly interesting, as Intel is measuring the boot time of a system as a canary for if it's been compromised. If the boot time suddenly and unexpectedly changes, then there's a good chance the firmware and/or OS has been replaced.

68 comments

  1. Exactly what we need by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    More CPU power for the next DDoS.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Exactly what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, beat me to it.

    2. Re:Exactly what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, but when they are inevitably compromised it's going to cause a lot of people headaches who never would have otherwise cared if their device was compromised.

      Reminds me a lot of a certain OS vendor's practices, too.

      Am I the only one who thinks the people complaining the most loudly about Windows 10 are the ones who capitalize on the exploitation of older, security-compromised OS's?

      In the world of IT disinformation, remember, there are NO GOOD GUYS.

    3. Re: Exactly what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a good hardware way to rate limit outbound network requests while not fucking up usability?

    4. Re: Exactly what we need by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Of course. There is also ways to create secure devices in the first place. Unfortunately neither is a selling point, manufacturers of those devices are not held responsible for the damage their insecure and impossible to secure devices cause so you won't get it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Exactly what we need by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Complain about Windows 10? No way, as long as there is Windows, my job security is guaranteed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Exactly what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who thinks the people complaining the most loudly about Windows 10 are the ones who capitalize on the exploitation of older, security-compromised OS's?

      Yes, you're the only one.

    7. Re:Exactly what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a dumb comment (which will still get upvoted into the moon, because Slashdot).

      DDOS attacks rely purely on network throughput, not on CPU power. That you can launch a devastating DDOS attack with nothing more than some terrible ARM or MIPS CPU's demonstrates this quite well. If you have problems with this concept, consider that your average 20 buck switch has a routing capacity of several Gigabits per second (on paper, at least), and that *is not* running any top of the line CPU.

      Furthermore, at least in Linux, the CPU usage will be most definitely negligible. If the network card driver was properly implemented, most hardware memory read/write operations are done via DMA. With some careful programming, you can completely saturate the network without the CPU even getting warm.

      CPU is only a bottleneck if you are doing something important, like serving web pages. In the case of the DDOS attack, all you have to do is pump out as many packets as you can, which is cheap, in terms of CPU.

    8. Re: Exactly what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what would it be ? Serious question and don't muddle it with outrage. 1 outbound request per second ? Per minute (on an it device, not your pc, obviously ) ?

      Am I missing something obvious this would fuck up in basic functionality?

    9. Re:Exactly what we need by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      A DDOS doesn't require CPU power, but maybe you were trying to be funny.

    10. Re: Exactly what we need by moosehooey · · Score: 1

      Many of these attacks involve taking over an IP security camera, and throwing the video stream at the DDoS target. So it's the same rate and difficult to tell the difference, except maybe by looking for the lack of ACK packets.

    11. Re: Exactly what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your home camera should not be live streaming anywhere. You should be VPNing in to view the stream.

      Oh, and your firewall should be dropping internationally originated inbound traffic in the first place for moat people.

    12. Re: Exactly what we need by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it won't be useful. Part of the nature of the DDOS attack is that no particular host sends packets at a high rate (too easy to detect and shut down). It's the sheer number of slow devices that floods the target.

    13. Re:Exactly what we need by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This isn't really "IoT". A home router is not IOT either. Yes it's a thing, and it's on the internet, but so is your computer and your phone. This new CPU sounds like a power hog focused on being fast, whereas I'm working on something that has to run on a non-rechargeable battery for twenty years. Intel is focusing on the consumer IoT fad I suspect.

      What an IoT chip *should* have: low power and security. Meaning average only a handful of microamps, the fewer the better as it allows customers to add their own exrtras. And for security you want secure key storage (private keys never in ram) and support for crypto that allows PKIP (you need more than just AES). Too many devices seem oriented to wifi which is just an awful way to go; high power and bad security.

    14. Re: Exactly what we need by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They should be held responsible. That means the customers must be the ones demanding those features. Sometimes the manufacturers have to inform the customers about why security is important (ie if your SCADA or utility customers think security is an afterthought then bring up the worst case scenarios and scare them into getting a better product).

      Too often time to market trumps security - especially in the consumer market where fads can vanish suddenly and your market for IoT refrigerators dries up overnight.

    15. Re: Exactly what we need by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      These attacks rely on security shortcomings of said devices. Whether they can make one or a million requests per second doesn't change the game, the problem is that there are many such compromised devices, not that a single one of them is causing a lot of traffic.

      The problem is actually less the amount of traffic. That amount did increase, yes, but until the IoT became a part of the attack, most of the high volume attacks were reflected DNS attacks or similar that could easily be filtered at scrubbers. You simply run your traffic through a scrubber with a fat pipe, it filters all the DNS replies and presto, instant solution. Doesn't work anymore now that these devices are not reflecting, they actually are numerous enough to run attacks that look like genuine http(s) requests. No chance to filter that. And it doesn't matter whether this single device can be limited to X requests. The problem is the number of compromised devices.

      So unless you're willing to cripple the devices to the point where they become essentially useless, this is the wrong approach.

      The right approach is to disable the more damaging properties of the device until they are properly set up. The very least this must consist of is a change of the default password. The current batch of attacks is mostly relying on IoT devices connected to the internet with the default password still valid. Most of them because the users never bothered to change it, but sadly there are even devices where "changing" the default password only adds another valid password to the list and the default credentials remain valid.

      This is the core of the current problem.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re: Exactly what we need by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And now explain that to the mom that just bought a cam to monitor her baby. I'll bring the popcorn.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re: Exactly what we need by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The customers will not demand these features. For them, these aren't features. To them, they're at best useless, at worst a nuisance. Where's the benefit for the user if his device doesn't harm him, only harms others, and he's not responsible for it?

      Yes, he should feel responsible. But people are not that way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re: Exactly what we need by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, if your customer is a utility, and they've got an angry mob outside your office wondering why all their data has been stolen... A city manager may care that the traffic lights aren't hacked. And so on. Those people ARE responsible. The home hipster though probably isn't concerned that his wifi coffee maker is being spied on, he just wants a cool gadget to prove to his friends that he's not a luddite. But if home hipster causes damage to others through his own negligence he will be held liable in a courtroom.

    19. Re: Exactly what we need by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm less concerned with the home hipster, he will quickly be deconverted as soon as one of his computer savvy friends points out that the device is insecure and that he's now part of the bot herd. Because if there's one thing a hipster cannot stand it's being part of the herd.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. "inerieted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Inerieted"? That's an odd word. Did the writer perhaps mean to type "inebriated"?

    1. Re:"inerieted"? by Duhfus · · Score: 0

      I suspect they meant "inherited".

    2. Re:"inerieted"? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      "Inerieted"? That's an odd word. Did the writer perhaps mean to type "inebriated"?

      I suspect they meant "inherited".

      But they probably were inebriated

    3. Re:"inerieted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you google the word, this is the first result - such a unique misspelling that it has never occurred before. Now that's good editing.

  3. Boot timing and attacks? by mlts · · Score: 1

    I wonder how useful having the time it takes to boot be a measurement if a ROM is compromised or not.

    For example, assuming the ROM uses Linux and has a few writable partitions, if it boots up and does a fsck, or just replays filesystem transaction logs, this will almost certainly be different each boot, especially if the system had a dirty shutdown.

    However, if the timing is measured from the OS boots until it mounts the read-only RAMdrive and gets ready to load the main OS, that is a lot more predictable.

    1. Re:Boot timing and attacks? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      I wonder how useful having the time it takes to boot be a measurement if a ROM is compromised or not.

      You mean system, not ROM. ROM cannot be compromised unless physically replaced, as it by definition is read-only.

      And all this will do is make any startup commands for malware run detached with a delay. That's child's play.

      But, as you allude to, it will likely lead to lots of false positives, as startup can depend on not only things like file system checks, but external factors like SSID broadcast frequency, DHCP response time, and various other factors.

    2. Re:Boot timing and attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      e.g. PROM, EPROM, EEPROM, and other forms of writable read-only memory.

    3. Re:Boot timing and attacks? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Most of these also require physical access.
      But anyhow, if you just say ROM, it means ROM, not .*ROM.

    4. Re:Boot timing and attacks? by moosehooey · · Score: 1

      Many of the recent attacks are RAM-only, so simply rebooting the device gets rid of the malware.

    5. Re:Boot timing and attacks? by mlts · · Score: 2

      s/ROM/firmware/g. In any case, a lot of malware remains in RAM. Yes, a reboot will fix it, but it can likely be added again, especially if compromised devices scan each other and re-compromise devices that were rebooted, but still vulnerable. Protecting the boot sequence does help, as firmware reflashes can be nasty and impossible to get rid of. However, what is needed is some thought is perhaps looking at a hypervisor and limiting what each machine/container has access to. For example, one container might do video encoding and may not need to have a connection to the NIC, other than what gets passed to a special firewall container.

      Of course, the best thing is using Z-Wave or another protocol, having devices use a hardened hub (or hubs for redundancy's sake) and never be accessible to the Internet.

  4. Way to go editors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Bits and pieces of this are inerieted from Intel's existing Trusted Execution Technology"

    I believe the word is "inherited". But it could also be 'inebriated", which is what I suspect the editors are.

  5. Go Cleveland! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NBA? Cavaliers stomped the rest!
    MLB? Indians will win it in 4!
    NFL? Browns are looking like a maybe! Call for virgins. Must be willing to sacrifice!

  6. Default password by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Let's see

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  7. iot toilet seats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet connected toilet seats,

    Sure, Intel will corner the market

    1. Re:iot toilet seats by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You joke, but there is a market.
      Japanese washlets are quite sophisticated, and can allow uploading of audio files for the sound masking. When you "produce", it's not uncommon to have a button you can push that generates a flushing sound, or otherwise camouflages the sound by playing another sound.

      In some areas where water is a premium resource, it can also be useful to monitor the number of washes and flushes. A high number of flushes compared to washes might mean installing a dry urinal could save water. Or that a better sound for "flushing" could be useful, so users use that instead of actual flushes.

    2. Re:iot toilet seats by mallyn · · Score: 1
      Actually they may have already got their hand in this.

      I currently have a bidet seat on my toilet. A bidet is a device that washes my privates after I do my thing.

      This bidet seat does have a microprocessor in it that controls both the heater for the water jet as well as the heater for the air jet used to blow dry my privates.

      Right at the moment, I see no reason for this bidet seat to be on line. Perhaps there might be some reason in the future. Oh, it could be something to do with sensing that I have some sort of contagios stomach disease and can page/im DCD or NIH. Be as it may, there is enough real estate inside that bidet seat unit the accomodate either a 4G modem or a WIFI device.

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    3. Re:iot toilet seats by c · · Score: 1

      Right at the moment, I see no reason for this bidet seat to be on line.

      Well, how else is the webcam going to publish a stream?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  8. 6 to 12 Watts? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2

    That's damn hungry for IoT...
    Meanwhile, ARM announces Cortex M23 potentially capable on running purely on harvested energy alone apparently.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:6 to 12 Watts? by c · · Score: 1

      That's damn hungry for IoT...

      Yeah... while Intel's trying to breed T-rex's, the rest of the IoT world is standardizing on velociraptors.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  9. Aren't they too power-hungry? by paolo.redaelli · · Score: 1

    I may have missed something but isn't a target TDP of 6.5-12 watts a little too much for IOT? I often read about ARM based boards with TDP on 0,9-2 watts. Ok those Atoms may be most probably far powerful, but their TDP still looks like a little too high.

    1. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Intel hasn't been able to make a chip low-power enough for phones, how the hell are they going to make chips that use low enough power for IoT?

    2. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by I4ko · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what's the point. At 6 to 12W one can ran comfortably a Haswell U chip. Even the Celerons will have more oomph than the crappy atom cores in this one. Oh.. I get it.. it is more spying via the integrated management engine. Cause in IoT the users are the product.

    3. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      "the launch of the Atom E3900 series brings with it Intel’s first custom silicon targeting the roughly 6W to 12W market of more powerful IoT devices... ...As relatively high power processors these aren’t meant for wearables and such, but rather primarily devices on mains power where additional intelligence is needed. In Intel terminology, the E3900 is focused on “edge” devices as opposed to “core” devices. The idea being that Intel wants to move out data processing to the edge of an IoT network – into sensors and such devices – as opposed to having to use a dumb sensor that sends data back for processing...."

      For the ultra-low power, they offer this:

      http://www.anandtech.com/show/...

      Different applications, different requirements, different configurations and hence power needed...

    4. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's Intel. When most people say IoT, they mean 'embedded thing that can run a network stack, low power, probably powered by batteries'. When Intel says IoT, they mean something subtly different: 'computer, plugged into the mains, probably running Windows'. The overlap between the two is that they're both talking about insecure systems connected to the Internet.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is IoT anyway?
      6.5 watt for an internet enabled toaster? Apart from it being useless I don't see a problem with the power consumption there.
      What if we use it for internet enabled street lights? 650 watt for 100 posts? Doesn't seem like a big problem.

      You won't use it for anything battery driven, but that isn't a prerequisite for IoT.

      With an upper boundary of 12 watt it appears as if they have some idea that it should be possible to power the communication part of the device with Power over Ethernet or something.
      I guess that makes sense if you want to be able to signal that the refrigerator have lost power.

    6. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by gtall · · Score: 1

      I give up, just what exactly are those "edge" devices? Refrigerators? Air conditioning units? Even if it is these sorts of things, connecting them to the internet is asking for trouble seeing as security is not nailed down just yet. And what refrigerator company wants to ramp up their software effort to take advantage of the extra power. What will it buy them, what do consumers get out of it? They will probably buy from some middleman who wants to sell millions of processing units....which means cost per unit is going to favor ARM because it isn't that your device is powerful, it is that your device needs a power supplying infrastructure.

    7. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by ppartipilo · · Score: 1

      The newest generation Skylake and Kaby Lake u-series processors default to a 15w TDP and can be configured as a 7.5w TDP-Down. This gets you a full powered Core-i processor, not a weakened Atom chip. Is this device still a hampered weakened Atom-type chip or have they added some IoT centric features to a Core-i?

    8. Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why would it have to be Windows? There are plenty of embedded OSs that are x86 (even x86 only) and which would be perfectly happy w/ Goldmont: Minix, QNX, WindRiver, et al. A lot of them are not ported to ARM, and Goldmont would be just perfect for them

  10. money wasted. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Intel doesn't understand what businesses want: inexpensive parts.
    Intel doesn't understand what hobbyists want: inexpensive parts that don't need NDAs.
    Intel doesn't understand what the world doesn't need: more power hungry x86 platforms.
    Intel doesn't understand that we don't need them.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:money wasted. by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Intel doesn't understand that we don't need them.

      Yes, they understand that. That is why Slashdot announced that Intel was killing Atom chips just six months ago.

      https://mobile.slashdot.org/st...

      However, now they have a new Atom chip. What is going on? Did they kill Atom, or didn't they? Me confused.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:money wasted. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      The article mentions two specific Atom chips for a specific (smartphones) purpose. It could also be that they've killed development, but that this chip was already in production so it might as well be pushed out because humans are pretty bad about chasing a sunk cost with more money in some kind of idiotic hope. Now that they've pushed their latest stillborn child out into the world, Intel can hardly declare it a giant turd, so marketing comes up with some buzzwords or an intended purpose because they've got their own needful to do and then we paw over it on /. for a day before forgetting about it entirely until someone picks one of these up months later because they need a serviceable box that doesn't have significant CPU requirements and because these chips are being flogged off at bargain rates to clear shelf space.

    3. Re:money wasted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are already selling the x5-Z8350 which is 4 cores, 2 watts, and $21. At least that's fairly priced. Their mobile/laptop Pentiums and Celerons sell for over $100, while their desktop counterparts are usually under $100. I know there are laptops with Celerons, but I don't think Dell and company and paying list price for those chips.

    4. Re:money wasted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no alternative cpu for a home file server currently. A small market, but still.

    5. Re:money wasted. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Since when were Atoms power hungry x86s?

    6. Re:money wasted. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      they eat a lot more power than comparable ARM chips, so since always.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  11. Where are the I/Os ? by BESTouff · · Score: 1

    One slide says "Enhanced IOs", but what kind of I/Os are there ? I hope there are GPIOs, TW, SPI, etc.

  12. Yawn by butzwonker · · Score: 0

    Man, I hate the chip market. I want to have an affordable 6 to 12 core chip with 5 to 6 GHz default clock rate, not this low-powered Internet of things crap. I hope AMD comes up with something soon that will make them have to take into account some competition again, or else we will be stuck with slow desktops forever.

    1. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once estimated what would be needed by my father in his architecture office for a software that actually would change the way a designer works: 18 teraflops sustained, in a silent deskside package, with significantly under 1kW power consumption. Oh, and available under $2k. Then there is the missing software.. I guess the future of personal computing closely mirrors the efforts of the supercomputer community: insane parallelism, but with much stricter latency requirements.

    2. Re:Yawn by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Man, I hate the chip market. I want to have an affordable 6 to 12 core chip with 5 to 6 GHz default clock rate, not this low-powered Internet of things crap.

      I don't want overkill. I want something stable, that won't need to be encased in a cubic meter of gold/lead alloy to be protected from cosmic rays because the fab die has decreased to barely usable. Something that will last for 15+ years, while delivering enough umph, but not orders of magnitude more than I need.

      My main server is a PIIIs, and as it still runs the latest software, why would I need new hardware that's less reliable? It is more than enough to handle DNS, DHCP, internal web, incoming e-mail for multiple domains, and various other services, at an average load of 0.04 (and 0.03 of that is due to incessant incoming spam, mostly from IoT botnets).
      Give me reliability, not bells, whistles and turbocharging I don't need.

    3. Re:Yawn by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

      I feel like you completely missed the point of this platform (embedded devices do not need shittons of CPU... ) but what, exactly, are you doing that requires 12 cores at 6GHz because your raw CPU is the bottleneck in a Desktop platform or architecture??? 'Slow desktops forever' my ass... 16G RAM, SSDs, and bus-level access are commodity product specs now. If you have Desktop software that is slow because of a CPU bottleneck, you either have shitty code, or your software should never have been designed for a desktop use case. Da fuq?

      --
      Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    4. Re:Yawn by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 1

      Flight simulation, audio processing with huge number of tracks and soft synths, compiling large software projects, stuff like that. It's really not hard to get to the limits of off-the-shelf PCs and I don't have the money for a 5k workstation either.

  13. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see a "Microsoft Azure App Service" Sponsored Content entry right beneath this one on the main page?

  14. What's IoT for Intel then? by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    What Intel's definition of IoT?

    This looks like a human interface device (GUI) with some hardware control capability (enhanced determinism) rather then an embedded MCU.

    Perhaps sth that can be use for example on a drone for higher level functions such as command, navigation, video (CV) ?

    --
    4wdloop
    1. Re:What's IoT for Intel then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Intel's definition of IoT?

      Anything made by IoTG (Internet of Things Group). This includes chips that don't look IOTy because they look like the specs of the computer you had 5 years ago, but they are now in a power and physical envelope that allows deploying in more diverse scenarios. They do really small things too.

  15. Names! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E3900?

    As a person who works on these products, I understand this as the point in time where the name changes from something I understand to something I cannot possibly remember.

  16. Right conclusion, erroneous argument by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's true that generating packets doesn't require a lot of cpu power.

    > consider that your average 20 buck switch has a routing capacity of several Gigabits per second (on paper, at least)

    Switches actually don't route, they switch. Routing is level 3, IP packets. Switching is level 2, ethernet frames. For $5,000 you can get a "level 3 switch", which is actually a router combined with a switch.

    > and that *is not* running any top of the line CPU.

    It is, however, running a purpose-built switching chip, which runs about $6 in small quanities. The CPU (mcu) isn't involved in switching frames at all. The cpu/mcu only gets involved when there are CHANGES to the switching rules, at which point it sends new tables to the chip that does the switching. Switching frames is completely different from generating new IP packets from scratch.

  17. I thought Atom was dead. by Darkness+Of+Course · · Score: 0

    But noooo, Intel wants to barge into another area in the same manner as they blundered about in the mobile market using the poor Atom once again. I buy Teensy (by pjrc.com at sparkfun.com and adafruit.com). They cost about as much as the Atom CPU and do exactly what is needed. A simple solution that works within the power envelope of the idea. If I was to go all commercial (not likely at all) I would still stick with ARM and the lower power envelope. Intel's IoT idea is the same pig they failed with in mobile/phones. Changing the pig's lipstick doesn't make it a usable solution.

  18. EU configuration by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    12 or 18 EU configurations of Intel’s Gen9 iGPU

    What is an EU in this context? Execution Unit?