vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

Intel, Arduino founders launch the Genuino 101 maker board

by Mark Tyson on 16 October 2015, 11:35

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qacvjb

Add to My Vault: x

Intel has launched the Genuino 101 maker board, which will be known as the Arduino 101 inside the USA. This is the first widely available development board based on the tiny, low-power Intel Curie module. The Genuino 101 is aimed at education environments, makers and embedded developers and is designed to be easy to use and affordable. It is more compact, affordable and power efficient than Intel's previous maker boards such as the Edison and Galieo.

The Intel Curie processor at the heart of the Genuino 101 has the following key features:

  • A low-power, 32-bit Intel Quark SE SoC
  • Up to 384kB Flash memory, 80kB SRAM
  • A low-power integrated DSP sensor hub and pattern-matching technology
  • Bluetooth Smart Low Energy connectivity
  • 6-axis combo sensor with accelerometer and gyroscope
  • Battery charging circuitry (PMIC)

The founders of Arduino have worked closely with Intel on the maker board announced today. "We worked closely with Intel on the development of this board and are expanding our educational courseware to incorporate the connectivity and advanced features expected by today's student developers," said Massimo Banzi, co-founder and CEO, Arduino. Intel will help the new maker board reach a global community of entry-level makers and students.

In the classroom Genuino 101 will be incorporated into the Creative Technologies in the Classroom (CTC) physical computing course developed and tested by Arduino and currently deployed in over 300 schools. Elementary and secondary school students will learn the foundations of programming, electronics and mechanics with the help of this hardware and the CTC course will be pushed to schools worldwide in the coming years.

For makers the new board should appeal with the combination of Arduino's open-source electronics platform and Intel's wearable-friendly processor. It is expected to be used in prototype technology-based products that 'connect and compute'. The Genuino 101 will be featured as a prototyping tool in upcoming episodes of America’s Greatest Makers on US TV.

The Intel manufactured Genuino/Arduino 101 will start to become available from Q1 2016, priced at around 27 Euros ($30, £20). There will be plenty of choice of where to buy the new device, with companies such as Amazon, Farnell Element 14, Microcenter and RadioShack all intending to carry stock of the new maker board.

Microcontroller

Intel Curie

Operating Voltage

3.3V (5V tolerant I/O)

Input Voltage (recommended)

7-12V

Input Voltage (limit)

6-20V

Digital I/O Pins

14 (of which 4 provide PWM output)

PWM Digital I/O Pins

4

Analog Input Pins

6

DC Current per I/O Pin

4 mA

Flash Memory

196 kB

SRAM

24 kB

Clock Speed

32MHz

Features

Bluetooth LE, 6-axis accelerometer/gyro

Length

68.6 mm

Width

53.4 mm

 



HEXUS Forums :: 7 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
More pointeless intel tat that no-one actually wants.
abaxas
another intel product that i dont want.

ftfy
Platinum
ftfy

I would lean more towards Abaxas on this.

For a one-off, you use a Rasberry Pi 2 because it is the same cost as this and magnitudes more powerful allowing you to script stuff in Python, embed web servers for control, log stuff to SD card all really easily.

If you want to make 10000 of something, you design a custom circuit board and use an embedded controller like an H8S where there are a range to choose from so you can get all the ADC/DAC/PWM/SPI etc channels that you want and the right level of flash and SRAM, and the cost of the development board isn't that important.

Between the breadth of available hardware from the established MCU vendors and the power of cheaper hobby boards like the Pi 2, I just don't see why anyone would bother with Quark.
DanceswithUnix
Platinum
ftfy

I would lean more towards Abaxas on this.

For a one-off, you use a Rasberry Pi 2 because it is the same cost as this and magnitudes more powerful allowing you to script stuff in Python, embed web servers for control, log stuff to SD card all really easily.

If you want to make 10000 of something, you design a custom circuit board and use an embedded controller like an H8S where there are a range to choose from so you can get all the ADC/DAC/PWM/SPI etc channels that you want and the right level of flash and SRAM, and the cost of the development board isn't that important.

Between the breadth of available hardware from the established MCU vendors and the power of cheaper hobby boards like the Pi 2, I just don't see why anyone would bother with Quark.

although rasp pi is more powerful its not in the exact category as a arduino as it requires a linux based os to boot before its able to do anything. so for more instant power up/ real time processing a micro controller or arduino is more suitable.

as a example i wanted to make my mechanical keyboard into a wireless or Bluetooth keyboard recently. now if i used a raspberry pi its not really feasible to wait for raspbian to boot up every time i wake the keyboard up from sleep. but a arduino with a Bluetooth shield would be more useful in this aspect. and now this has integrated Bluetooth which makes this reduces my part list and cheaper and smaller for me to fit into my keyboard case.

a big part of being a maker is the ability to go and make something that meets a niche need where a major company wont waste time to develop and bring to market. so ultimately i dont think this is geared towards company that want to build a product around it, but more towards makers that may make a something useful and can reproduce it easily in small quantities by buying a few extra boards to sell on as kits rather producing a custom pcb costing £100 each in small quantities.
noobieocer
although rasp pi is more powerful its not in the exact category as a arduino as it requires a linux based os to boot before its able to do anything. so for more instant power up/ real time processing a micro controller or arduino is more suitable.

as a example i wanted to make my mechanical keyboard into a wireless or Bluetooth keyboard recently. now if i used a raspberry pi its not really feasible to wait for raspbian to boot up every time i wake the keyboard up from sleep. but a arduino with a Bluetooth shield would be more useful in this aspect. and now this has integrated Bluetooth which makes this reduces my part list and cheaper and smaller for me to fit into my keyboard case.

a big part of being a maker is the ability to go and make something that meets a niche need where a major company wont waste time to develop and bring to market. so ultimately i dont think this is geared towards company that want to build a product around it, but more towards makers that may make a something useful and can reproduce it easily in small quantities by buying a few extra boards to sell on as kits rather producing a custom pcb costing £100 each in small quantities.

I do get that, I have a background as an embedded systems programmer. Perhaps that gives me a strange perspective, there is no way I am going to cruft together something like a wireless software stack when I can so easily and cheaply just use the one in Linux, as I am used to putting a fairly high value on my time (which since becoming a parent I think has become higher). If I want to do something really simple like switching things on and off from inputs then PIC chip is the obvious way to go. In your keyboard case, there are off the shelf solutions that could be re-housed inside the keyboard, but otherwise there are a gazillion controllers out there and each one has a prototyping/evaluation board to go with it.

As always there seems to be an extra cost involved in buying Intel. For PC like stuff that's bearable, but x86 in embedded work has for me generally resulted in a system taking three times longer to implement than under competing architectures, going way over budget as part of trying to get the thing working and the end result is generally not that good. The times when that hasn't been the case is when the embedded system is running Linux, in which case I would be back to looking at the Pi 2. When someone is paying me that is just a bad day at the office, but I can't imaging doing it for fun.

If this had a Ti chip or a SuperH controller on it then I might be interested.