4 ms·
Correct. By definition, if volume is high enough, an FPGA will always lose to a custom chip. That's why it feels like FPGAs are always about to win, except they
by alain94040 7y ago
Correct. By definition, if volume is high enough, an FPGA will always lose to a custom chip. That's why it feels like FPGAs are always about to win, except they never do because for every real use case, someone will make a better chip.
In other words, the overhead of the re-configurable aspect of FPGA is just too high.
- banjo_milkman 7y agoBack when chip costs were reasonable, custom chips would always beat FPGAs and were an easy option for many applications but I think things have changed somewhat in the last few years with the decline of Moore's law. Now there are fewer and fewer companies that can afford to develop custom chips at leading technology nodes. Some estimates are it costs $100m to get a custom chip into product at 7nm. The volumes just aren't there for many applications to justify a custom chip, it doesn't make sense unless the market is huge and the algorithms are static. FPGAs work well in these cases. Have you seen Microsoft Brainwave? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/project-brainwave/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/project-bra...
- nl 7y agoThis is true, but: a) most applications don't need 7nm. S3 will do a custom ASIC for under $2M[1], and I've heard figures as low as $100K for a FPGA for ASIC conversion. b) General purpose embedded CPUs with extended instruction sets are often fast enough for most purposes. [1] https://www.s3semi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/S3semi_silicon_economics_WhitePaper_Jun18.pdf https://www.s3semi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/S3semi_sil...
- alain94040 7y agoWe agree, which is why I prefaced my statement with if volume is high enough. Just how high for 7nm is left as an exercise to the reader :-)