up vote 3 down vote favorite
share [g+] share [fb]

I was just looking through the Intel site and I came across this -

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=28398

Anyone know why the 9400 has a tick in the embedded column? I have tried to contact Intel and not had a response.

I have looked around but cannot find any additional reference and it seems to be available from shops just like any other CPU.

Anyone have any ideas?

link|improve this question
50% accept rate
feedback

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The Intel product page for Q9400 describes its embedded applications.
(I just clicked through from your link).
What I do not understand is, how come the Q9400S is not marked embedded.
The latter is a lower TDP version of Q9400.

Update:
I think this Intel Embedded Design Center page might have answers to whats special about the embedded tick on a processor.

link|improve this answer
Thank you, I understand, and if no one else answers, I will be happy to select this as answer, however I already read the page you linked to and it is the overall page for the Core 2 Quad CPU range and states embedded, however the page I linked to shows that only that one CPU is embedded... I can't say I fully understand the new definition of embedded, it seems like a normal PC :S – William Hilsum Aug 25 '09 at 4:09
@Wil, Right! I was trying to understand the same thing. Added a couple of other links from my searches. Would be glad to understand the term (and to confirm that its not just a glitch on that page :-) – nik Aug 25 '09 at 4:23
So, it seems they just picked the 9400 at random to tick embedded :S The new link you posted looks interesting. Is the only difference that you get 7 year support, and it is "supported" for embedded? Personally, I have built a few systems using the 9400 and as far as I thought, it was no different to any other Quad CPU and I just did not understand why it has a tick on the embedded column when compared to the other ones. As you said, if anything, for embedded, I would of thought they would use the low voltage version :S Must be the worst energy inefficient embedded system... – William Hilsum Aug 25 '09 at 4:51
1  
rated up, and will tick soonish... not sure anyone else can answer better, but I would like to leave this open for a little bit in the hope that someone who has worked with embedded systems / understands this will answer.... Just so confused as to when the definition of embedded changed. Can't imagine seeing a 95watt CPU in a handheld any time soon! – William Hilsum Aug 25 '09 at 4:54
3  
Not all embedded systems are super low power. They're also not all aimed for handhelds. There's industrial applications where high-power CPUs are used in embedded apps. Usually the chip will be "hardened" in some fashion... – Brian Knoblauch Apr 5 '10 at 20:24
show 1 more comment
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.