back to article Intel scales Atom to 16 cores, updates Xeon SoCs

Intel's tossed out a batch of new products ahead of Mobile World Congress, all of them handy for internet of things applications operating on very fast wireless networks. Among them is a new generation of "Denverton" Atom processors. The new C3000 family now offer between two and 16 cores, with clock speeds up to a swift 2.2 …

  1. Voland's right hand Silver badge
    Joke

    Intel scales Atom to 16 cores

    Curious minds want to know - with or without a working oscillator :)

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Intel scales Atom to 16 cores

      Since it's now a '3000' one assume it will take 27 months to die. I doubt the increased core count will bring that down again...

    2. PNGuinn
      Coat

      Re: Intel scales Atom to 16 cores @Voland

      Or to put it another way .... 16 single points of failure?

      Thanks - it's the one with the ECC83 multivibrator in the pocketses.

  2. Duncan Macdonald Silver badge

    Clock bug ?

    Will these chips have a showstopper bug like the C2000 Atom's clock bug?

    After the way that a lot of firms were burnt by the C2000 fiasco, I would expect some resistance to the use of the new chips (and probably some very tough contract terms covering any problems).

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Clock bug ?

      Well, producing a Pentium that couldn't count didn't seem to affect them much back in the day, so I can't see this being a big bother.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Clock bug ?

      They timed the arrival of the C3000 with the projected failure window of the C2000.

      Genious!

  3. alain williams Silver badge

    Get into cars !!!

    I do not want the VM that is controlling my car brakes to be on the same piece of silicon that was running the kids' shoot-em-up game (or grand theft auto). Even with best effort today some future exploit could slow down the brake VM. In fact I would be even happier if non-core car driving functions were isolated onto a separate network within the car.

    Sorry Intel: I'll just say ''no''.

    1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Re: Get into cars !!!

      Same here. While I'm quite a fan of virtualisation (the computer industry have been virtualising different layers for decades) when it come to life critical systems these should be physically separated from anything else. This is standard practice in industrial safety systems.

    2. Crazy Operations Guy Silver badge

      Re: Get into cars !!!

      I'm a bit concerned about running safety-critical systems on commodity silicon...

      I would much prefer that the vehicles run on a set of FPGAs running externally-audited VHDL code. There should be at least 3 such FPGAs running redundantly tied together with voting logic.

      I would not feel comfortable trusting my safety to a piece of silicon that can be wedged by masking interrupts, then putting the chip into sleep.

  4. regadpellagru

    "Same here. While I'm quite a fan of virtualisation (the computer industry have been virtualising different layers for decades) when it come to life critical systems these should be physically separated from anything else. This is standard practice in industrial safety systems."

    Agree, but it won't happen before many People have died due to security issue on the cars' Systems, and it has been proved, and some regulations has happened.

    Cars manufacturors, those days, are after 10 E worth of costs cuts per car, which is incompatible with anything dedicated.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019