http://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-in-talks-to-buy-altera-1427485172 --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com
Intel in Talks to buy Altera
Started by ●March 27, 2015
Reply by ●March 27, 20152015-03-27
>http://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-in-talks-to-buy-altera-1427485172 >--------------------------------------- >Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comOups, here's another link about the same news that doesn't require to log in: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102508247 --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com
Reply by ●March 27, 20152015-03-27
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:50:23 -0500, "" wrote:> http://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-in-talks-to-buy-altera-1427485172 > --------------------------------------- > Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comHmm. While I have tons of respect for Intel as a company that makes stuff that people will buy, I'm old enough to have seen more than one generation of Intel embedded processors go by the wayside when the PC market picked up. So I don't trust Intel's attention span vis-a-vis whatever they happen to think their core business is. If they kept Altera as an easily-spun-off business unit, and kept it supported, then I could see them spinning it off again when the PC market did pick up, or by some miracle they managed to make cell phone processors that actually worked, or something. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●March 28, 20152015-03-28
On 3/27/2015 2:28 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:50:23 -0500, "" wrote: > >> http://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-in-talks-to-buy-altera-1427485172 >> --------------------------------------- >> Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com > > Hmm. While I have tons of respect for Intel as a company that makes stuff > that people will buy, I'm old enough to have seen more than one generation > of Intel embedded processors go by the wayside when the PC market picked > up. > > So I don't trust Intel's attention span vis-a-vis whatever they happen to > think their core business is. If they kept Altera as an easily-spun-off > business unit, and kept it supported, then I could see them spinning it > off again when the PC market did pick up, or by some miracle they managed > to make cell phone processors that actually worked, or something. >Not just embedded processors... It wouldn't be the first time Intel was in the programmable logic business. http://www.dataman.com/media/datasheet/Intel/5C090.pdf http://www.dataman.com/media/datasheet/Intel/5C060.pdf https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9rh9tVI0J5mSzhDNUVpeVcyNDA/edit Didn't Altera buy Intel's PLD business back in the '90s??? Sorry. I don't see how this could be a good thing for Altera. Rob.
Reply by ●March 28, 20152015-03-28
On 3/28/2015 1:38 AM, Rob Doyle wrote:> On 3/27/2015 2:28 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:50:23 -0500, "" wrote: >> >>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-in-talks-to-buy-altera-1427485172 >>> --------------------------------------- >>> Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com >> >> Hmm. While I have tons of respect for Intel as a company that makes >> stuff >> that people will buy, I'm old enough to have seen more than one >> generation >> of Intel embedded processors go by the wayside when the PC market picked >> up. >> >> So I don't trust Intel's attention span vis-a-vis whatever they happen to >> think their core business is. If they kept Altera as an easily-spun-off >> business unit, and kept it supported, then I could see them spinning it >> off again when the PC market did pick up, or by some miracle they managed >> to make cell phone processors that actually worked, or something. >> > > Not just embedded processors... > > It wouldn't be the first time Intel was in the programmable logic business. > > http://www.dataman.com/media/datasheet/Intel/5C090.pdf > http://www.dataman.com/media/datasheet/Intel/5C060.pdf > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9rh9tVI0J5mSzhDNUVpeVcyNDA/edit > > Didn't Altera buy Intel's PLD business back in the '90s??? > > Sorry. I don't see how this could be a good thing for Altera.Yeah, I'm concerned too. I'm hoping that Altera is big enough that Intel won't want to mess with them and destroy the company. I think those data sheets are from the days when dinosaurs roamed the FPGA earth and was Intel's own attempt to enter the market. I have no idea why they actually bailed. I can only assume the competition was stiff then with a number of startups including Neocad providing the place and route software for a number of these companies. Xilinx has said they spend more on software development than they do developing the hardware. Several of these companies dropped their in house software development due to the huge cost. Maybe Intel dropped the product line because of it. But much more recently they were working with a company to produce some much more advanced product which I believe may still be operating using Intel's fab technology, or has it also gone belly up? I don't recall the name. Looks like Intel likes the Altera approach and want to keep it, literally. -- Rick
Reply by ●March 28, 20152015-03-28
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 03:54:07 -0400 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:> I think those data sheets are from the days when dinosaurs roamed the > FPGA earth and was Intel's own attempt to enter the market. I have no > idea why they actually bailed. I can only assume the competition was > stiff then with a number of startups including Neocad providing the > place and route software for a number of these companies. Xilinx has > said they spend more on software development than they do developing the > hardware. Several of these companies dropped their in house software > development due to the huge cost. Maybe Intel dropped the product line > because of it. But much more recently they were working with a company > to produce some much more advanced product which I believe may still be > operating using Intel's fab technology, or has it also gone belly up? I > don't recall the name.Yes, more advanced - ten times faster and/or lower power. Asynchronous, so no clock tree, but hard to get technical detail: http://www.achronix.com/ Jan Coombs -- email valid, else fix dots and hyphen jan4clf2014@murrayhyphenmicroftdotcodotuk
Reply by ●March 28, 20152015-03-28
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:50:23 -0500, "" wrote:> http://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-in-talks-to-buy-altera-1427485172 > --------------------------------------- > Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comWell, Intel were Altera's 'second source' (back when that mattered) and (if I'm not mistaken) their original fab back in about 1983 - which is where the "Intel FPGAs" mentioned in another post came from. So there's quite a long association there. -- Brian
Reply by ●March 28, 20152015-03-28
Reply by ●March 31, 20152015-03-31
Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> writes:> Well, Intel were Altera's 'second source' (back when that mattered) and > (if I'm not mistaken) their original fab back in about 1983 - which is > where the "Intel FPGAs" mentioned in another post came from. > > So there's quite a long association there.Wasn't there also some kind of Intel Atom + Altera FPGA on the same chip? Ah yes, the Stellarton. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1257969 I guess those weren't huge sellers... But last summer Intel announced some upcoming Xeons with FPGA logic on board. No doubt targeting the server markets where FPGA coprocessors have made appearances recently.
Reply by ●March 31, 20152015-03-31
On 3/31/2015 3:30 AM, Anssi Saari wrote:> Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> writes: > >> Well, Intel were Altera's 'second source' (back when that mattered) and >> (if I'm not mistaken) their original fab back in about 1983 - which is >> where the "Intel FPGAs" mentioned in another post came from. >> >> So there's quite a long association there. > > Wasn't there also some kind of Intel Atom + Altera FPGA on the same > chip? Ah yes, the > Stellarton. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1257969 > > I guess those weren't huge sellers... But last summer Intel announced > some upcoming Xeons with FPGA logic on board. No doubt targeting the > server markets where FPGA coprocessors have made appearances recently.I thought that was two die in the same package, no? Reading your article the term, "system-in-package" indicates multiple die. It think the advantage is in reducing the system size and having a very direct connection between the two chips. Putting them on one die would likely make a faster connection possible, but would be much more difficult to pair in various combinations. That's the big reason why FPGA makers have resisted for so long incorporating CPUs on the FPGA chip until recently. -- Rick
