Comparing the Yun with the Intel Galileo

Official Hardware Classic Yún
1

i'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, apologies if it isn't.

i am really still only an Uno & Nano user but have started peeking at "what's next" and was wondering if anyone could help confirm or correct my understanding of certain fundamental differences.

the SparkFun guide Galileo Getting Started Guide - SparkFun Learn says this

What the Galileo tries to do is meld the ease of Arduino’s hardware manipulation with the power of a fully operational Linux operating system

from what i understand of the Yun, it also combines the Arduino with the Linux world.

aside from the obvious specification differences, Galileo has more memory space (Flash, SRAM & EEPROM) while the Yun has better GPIO(?) pins (more and better current handling capabilities), what else would you point out as the core differences ?

i'm guessing the fact that the Yun has DUAL processors, while the Galileo has the Arduino AND the Linux (handler?) on one chip is key - is there a performance advantage in having ONE processor rather than having to "interface"(?) TWO processors(/controller) ?

sorry if i'm using the terminology incorrectly.

2

I had actually ordered a Galileo and while waiting for it to ship read up on it. I cancelled the order when I saw that "arduino" input/output is very slow. This guy decided it was roughly a 500x difference: http://www.drdobbs.com/embedded-systems/galileo-the-slowest-fast-computer-around/240165716 The Galileo seems to emulate the AVR hardware in software.

3

retronet_RIMBA1ZO:
from what i understand of the Yun, it also combines the Arduino with the Linux world.

aside from the obvious specification differences, Galileo has more memory space (Flash, SRAM & EEPROM) while the Yun has better GPIO(?) pins (more and better current handling capabilities), what else would you point out as the core differences ?

i'm guessing the fact that the Yun has DUAL processors, while the Galileo has the Arduino AND the Linux (handler?) on one chip is key - is there a performance advantage in having ONE processor rather than having to "interface"(?) TWO processors(/controller) ?

This is correct, the Galileo has only the Quark X-1000 processor, for both the scripts and the Linux part. One thing that I however already noticed for scouring over some Galileo related forums, is that the Galileo has issues with the I/O speed on the I/O pins.
If the separate processors on the Yun are a curse or a blessing, that might depend on how you are trying to use it. From a lot of posts in here, it seems a lot of people have a problem grasping the basic concept that needs to the deployed compared to the "old" way of using just an Uno (or Leonardo).

I will likely get around this weekend to play a bit more with my Galileo haven't really had a chance to dive more into it since I got mine earlier this week...

Ralf

4

PCWorxLA:

retronet_RIMBA1ZO:
...
...
i'm guessing the fact that the Yun has DUAL processors, while the Galileo has the Arduino AND the Linux (handler?) on one chip is key - is there a performance advantage in having ONE processor rather than having to "interface"(?) TWO processors(/controller) ?

This is correct, the Galileo has only the Quark X-1000 processor, for both the scripts and the Linux part. One thing that I however already noticed for scouring over some Galileo related forums, is that the Galileo has issues with the I/O speed on the I/O pins.

that seems to be what noblepepper in the previous post was referring to.
and the blog link also clarifies that in his measurements - if i understand it correctly the ATmega is being emulated in software, and that slows things down.

PCWorxLA:
If the separate processors on the Yun are a curse or a blessing, that might depend on how you are trying to use it. From a lot of posts in here, it seems a lot of people have a problem grasping the basic concept that needs to the deployed compared to the "old" way of using just an Uno (or Leonardo).

I will likely get around this weekend to play a bit more with my Galileo haven't really had a chance to dive more into it since I got mine earlier this week...

Ralf

have fun !!
if you have a blog or are willing to share your findings, would appreciate a link to it here :slight_smile:

5

Galileo V.S. Yun

mini PCI Express (mPCIe) slot: Yes/No
UART speed: 2764800/500000
RS-232 serial port: Yes/No
USB device port: Yes/No
10 pin JTAG ports: Yes/No
A/D converter: 12bits/10bits
SPI speed: 25MHz/4MHz
Real Time Clock: Yes/No
Build in Wifi: No/Yes

Galileo has very impression and updated documentation.

Two killer drawback of Galileo:

software emulate MCU. Slow.
x86 infrastructure v.s. ARM/MIP infrastructure at embed, battery power application. too much juice.

6

sonnyyu:
Galileo V.S. Yun

Well, let me comment on some of those...

mini PCI Express (mPCIe) slot: Yes/No

Is actually of very limited use at this point, as only it works only with a very limited number of Intel WiFi cards.

RS-232 serial port: Yes/No

Well, as far as this port of the Galileo goes, instead of a "yes", this rather should be a"maybe"....
For whatever reason, they use a strange "barrel plug" connector on the board...

USB device port: Yes/No

Well...
The Yun HAS one (1) USB host port, a regular USB Standard A connector, the Galileo has a USB Micro B connector (for which I would yet have to find a cable)

Real Time Clock: Yes/No

Well, another "maybe" for the Galileo. You need to connect a separate battery for the RTC in the X1000 to retain the clock...

Build in Wifi: No/Yes

Well, that is the main (only?) purpose of having the PCI-e slot.

Galileo has very impression and updated documentation.

Yes? Where?

IMHO, that is right now the biggest drawback of the Galileo, the almost complete lack of any real documenation (if you discount the 40 page warranty information in 38 different languages)

Two killer drawback of Galileo:

software emulate MCU. Slow.

Still have to get around to test that one out

x86 infrastructure v.s. ARM/MIP infrastructure at embed, battery power application. too much juice.

Come again? You do realize that the Quark X1000 is not "your father's x86 chip? You know that they use the very same chip in the SD card size Edison, don't you?

Ralf

7

The list of Mini PCI Express Cards:

RS-232/422/485 Mini PCI Express Card
Gigabit LAN Mini PCI Express Card
802.11a 4.9GHz/5Ghz Mini PCI Express Card
Bluetooth Mini PCI Express Card
Graphics Mini PCI Express Card
Wimax Mini PCI Express Card
5.8Ghz 802.11n MiMO 3x3 Mini PCI Express Card
5.8Ghz 802.11n Mini PCI Express Card

I got CR2032 Battery Holder from RadioShack, I have Battery and I happen have USB cable, and I made RS-232 serial cable myself.

Galileo documentation:

https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/documentation/quarkdocuments

Intel Quark SoC Documents

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=23171

Intel® Galileo software package

http://software.intel.com/en-us/iotdevkit

The Intel® Galileo Development Kit

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=23197

Intel Quark BSP

https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/documentation/galileodocuments

Intel Galileo Development Board Documents

Come again? You do realize that the Quark X1000 is not "your father's x86 chip? You know that they use the very same chip in the SD card size Edison, don't you?

Where is the link?

8

Edison, a computer the size of an SD card cost £25/10K?

$41.5/10k Edison, a computer the size of an SD card
$4~/10K AR9331 Arduino Yu, with support Chip cost $7~
$7.5/10k AM3358 BeagleBone Black/Arduino TRE, with support chip cost ~$12

9

sonnyyu:
The list of Mini PCI Express Cards:

RS-232/422/485 Mini PCI Express Card
Gigabit LAN Mini PCI Express Card
802.11a 4.9GHz/5Ghz Mini PCI Express Card
Bluetooth Mini PCI Express Card
Graphics Mini PCI Express Card
Wimax Mini PCI Express Card
5.8Ghz 802.11n MiMO 3x3 Mini PCI Express Card
5.8Ghz 802.11n Mini PCI Express Card

And what you are saying is exactly what?
Do you have the matching firmware to get any of those cards running on a Galileo?

Ralf

10

I've got both a Yun and a Galileo, and there are pros and cons to both. Generally speaking the Yun comes out ahead for me- for the primary reason of this community. The Galileo community is very new, and there's issues with getting the Galileo to do some things the Yun does out of the box:

Cons for the Galileo:
Wireless requires an additional card (supported ones can be hard to find)
Wireless requires a full Linux build on a microSD card
Galileo has issues with some high capacity cards (Several 32GB and 16GB cards did not work for me)
No mounting/project plates for the Galileo, so I had to make my own (http://www.polyideas.com/#/project-plate-for-the-intel-galileo/)
Lack of package management on the Galileo
Difficult to get a full Linux distro loaded on the Galileo

Some of these issues are similar for the Yun, but the fact that the Yun has a better community to report issues and workarounds helps considerably. One drawback for both is the fact they use different versions of the IDE.

11

jdoscher:
I've got both a Yun and a Galileo, and there are pros and cons to both. Generally speaking the Yun comes out ahead for me- for the primary reason of this community. The Galileo community is very new,

Well, to start it off, the Intel forum simply s***ks...

and there's issues with getting the Galileo to do some things the Yun does out of the box:

They are intended for different audiences/purposes to begin with... :wink:

Cons for the Galileo:
Wireless requires an additional card (supported ones can be hard to find)
Wireless requires a full Linux build on a microSD card

I actually couldn't careless for wireless, I actually prefer wired Ethernet.

Galileo has issues with some high capacity cards (Several 32GB and 16GB cards did not work for me)

Worked with the 32GB cards I tried, one a SanDisk, the other a random "off-brand"...

No mounting/project plates for the Galileo, so I had to make my own (http://www.polyideas.com/#/project-plate-for-the-intel-galileo/)

I downloaded late last week more than a dozen different ones from ThingyVerse... :wink:

Lack of package management on the Galileo
Difficult to get a full Linux distro loaded on the Galileo

For me, the Linux of the Galileo is totally secondary. I see it rather along the line of the Due, a single CPU/MCU board with another than AVR chip. Still have to find some time to make some tests to see how it compares with other Arduinos. It certainly provides a lot more Flash and RAM space for your sketches...

Some of these issues are similar for the Yun, but the fact that the Yun has a better community to report issues and workarounds helps considerably. One drawback for both is the fact they use different versions of the IDE.

The later is something I am not too happy about either. Should be possible to make the x86 stuff a separate target as they did it for the Due in the 1.5.x "Beta" branch...

Ralf

12

There are sth interesting for Galileo
IO2 and IO3 if configured as OUTPUT_FAST - will clock in at 477 kHz - to 2.93 MHz
https://communities.intel.com/message/207904

noblepepper:
I had actually ordered a Galileo and while waiting for it to ship read up on it. I cancelled the order when I saw that "arduino" input/output is very slow. This guy decided it was roughly a 500x difference: Galileo: The Slowest Fast Computer Around? | Dr Dobb's The Galileo seems to emulate the AVR hardware in software.