Mixing
Why are FPGAs so expensive?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I mean compared to ICs (ASICs) with similar complexity, speed etc. Let's compare ethernet-switches to Kintex FPGAs (Note that the most expensive switch from then list is cca as expensive as the cheapest Kintex)
- FPGAs are well structured ICs (like RAMs). They can be scaled and developed easily.
- The design tools (Vivado, Quartus etc) are expensive too, so I think the price of an FPGA is price of the IC (and development) itself excluding the cost of support and the tools. (Some non-FPGA vendors give free tools which development cost includes the IC price.)
Are FPGAs produced less amount than other ICs? Or is there any technological harness?
fpga
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I mean compared to ICs (ASICs) with similar complexity, speed etc. Let's compare ethernet-switches to Kintex FPGAs (Note that the most expensive switch from then list is cca as expensive as the cheapest Kintex)
- FPGAs are well structured ICs (like RAMs). They can be scaled and developed easily.
- The design tools (Vivado, Quartus etc) are expensive too, so I think the price of an FPGA is price of the IC (and development) itself excluding the cost of support and the tools. (Some non-FPGA vendors give free tools which development cost includes the IC price.)
Are FPGAs produced less amount than other ICs? Or is there any technological harness?
fpga
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
1
I think someone have made Ph.D. thesis in business science on the subject. It is not tech question, it is more business question involving tech comparison of apples with oranges. The main rule is - development tools (products) are always more expensive than consumer products - for various reasons, from revenue/cost estimation, and market demand, and availability of competing (functional) products.
– Anonymous
12 hours ago
Have you ever looked into a high end FPGA and all the features it offers? It is far from trivial to make it all work well together and anticipate the possible interactions. A similarily complex ASIC is also expensive as hell in the same numbers, the point where ASICs become cheaper is when are sold in the many millions. And your comparison is quite unfair because ethernet switches generally do not contain nearly as much complexity as an FPGA with all the PLL and signal conditioning and thousands of GPIO pins.
– PlasmaHH
12 hours ago
I don't get the comparison. Fpga cost anywhere between 80 cents and 50000$ - depending on size and features. Ethernet switches start at 20 Dollar and go up at least to severl hundred thousand dollar, ahain depending on size and features.
– asdfex
10 hours ago
As someone that works with both FPGAs and ethernet switches: why are those your two datapoints?
– DonFusili
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I mean compared to ICs (ASICs) with similar complexity, speed etc. Let's compare ethernet-switches to Kintex FPGAs (Note that the most expensive switch from then list is cca as expensive as the cheapest Kintex)
- FPGAs are well structured ICs (like RAMs). They can be scaled and developed easily.
- The design tools (Vivado, Quartus etc) are expensive too, so I think the price of an FPGA is price of the IC (and development) itself excluding the cost of support and the tools. (Some non-FPGA vendors give free tools which development cost includes the IC price.)
Are FPGAs produced less amount than other ICs? Or is there any technological harness?
fpga
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
I mean compared to ICs (ASICs) with similar complexity, speed etc. Let's compare ethernet-switches to Kintex FPGAs (Note that the most expensive switch from then list is cca as expensive as the cheapest Kintex)
- FPGAs are well structured ICs (like RAMs). They can be scaled and developed easily.
- The design tools (Vivado, Quartus etc) are expensive too, so I think the price of an FPGA is price of the IC (and development) itself excluding the cost of support and the tools. (Some non-FPGA vendors give free tools which development cost includes the IC price.)
Are FPGAs produced less amount than other ICs? Or is there any technological harness?
fpga
fpga
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
asked 12 hours ago
betontalpfa
1676
1676
1
I think someone have made Ph.D. thesis in business science on the subject. It is not tech question, it is more business question involving tech comparison of apples with oranges. The main rule is - development tools (products) are always more expensive than consumer products - for various reasons, from revenue/cost estimation, and market demand, and availability of competing (functional) products.
– Anonymous
12 hours ago
Have you ever looked into a high end FPGA and all the features it offers? It is far from trivial to make it all work well together and anticipate the possible interactions. A similarily complex ASIC is also expensive as hell in the same numbers, the point where ASICs become cheaper is when are sold in the many millions. And your comparison is quite unfair because ethernet switches generally do not contain nearly as much complexity as an FPGA with all the PLL and signal conditioning and thousands of GPIO pins.
– PlasmaHH
12 hours ago
I don't get the comparison. Fpga cost anywhere between 80 cents and 50000$ - depending on size and features. Ethernet switches start at 20 Dollar and go up at least to severl hundred thousand dollar, ahain depending on size and features.
– asdfex
10 hours ago
As someone that works with both FPGAs and ethernet switches: why are those your two datapoints?
– DonFusili
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
I think someone have made Ph.D. thesis in business science on the subject. It is not tech question, it is more business question involving tech comparison of apples with oranges. The main rule is - development tools (products) are always more expensive than consumer products - for various reasons, from revenue/cost estimation, and market demand, and availability of competing (functional) products.
– Anonymous
12 hours ago
Have you ever looked into a high end FPGA and all the features it offers? It is far from trivial to make it all work well together and anticipate the possible interactions. A similarily complex ASIC is also expensive as hell in the same numbers, the point where ASICs become cheaper is when are sold in the many millions. And your comparison is quite unfair because ethernet switches generally do not contain nearly as much complexity as an FPGA with all the PLL and signal conditioning and thousands of GPIO pins.
– PlasmaHH
12 hours ago
I don't get the comparison. Fpga cost anywhere between 80 cents and 50000$ - depending on size and features. Ethernet switches start at 20 Dollar and go up at least to severl hundred thousand dollar, ahain depending on size and features.
– asdfex
10 hours ago
As someone that works with both FPGAs and ethernet switches: why are those your two datapoints?
– DonFusili
10 hours ago
1
1
I think someone have made Ph.D. thesis in business science on the subject. It is not tech question, it is more business question involving tech comparison of apples with oranges. The main rule is - development tools (products) are always more expensive than consumer products - for various reasons, from revenue/cost estimation, and market demand, and availability of competing (functional) products.
– Anonymous
12 hours ago
I think someone have made Ph.D. thesis in business science on the subject. It is not tech question, it is more business question involving tech comparison of apples with oranges. The main rule is - development tools (products) are always more expensive than consumer products - for various reasons, from revenue/cost estimation, and market demand, and availability of competing (functional) products.
– Anonymous
12 hours ago
Have you ever looked into a high end FPGA and all the features it offers? It is far from trivial to make it all work well together and anticipate the possible interactions. A similarily complex ASIC is also expensive as hell in the same numbers, the point where ASICs become cheaper is when are sold in the many millions. And your comparison is quite unfair because ethernet switches generally do not contain nearly as much complexity as an FPGA with all the PLL and signal conditioning and thousands of GPIO pins.
– PlasmaHH
12 hours ago
Have you ever looked into a high end FPGA and all the features it offers? It is far from trivial to make it all work well together and anticipate the possible interactions. A similarily complex ASIC is also expensive as hell in the same numbers, the point where ASICs become cheaper is when are sold in the many millions. And your comparison is quite unfair because ethernet switches generally do not contain nearly as much complexity as an FPGA with all the PLL and signal conditioning and thousands of GPIO pins.
– PlasmaHH
12 hours ago
I don't get the comparison. Fpga cost anywhere between 80 cents and 50000$ - depending on size and features. Ethernet switches start at 20 Dollar and go up at least to severl hundred thousand dollar, ahain depending on size and features.
– asdfex
10 hours ago
I don't get the comparison. Fpga cost anywhere between 80 cents and 50000$ - depending on size and features. Ethernet switches start at 20 Dollar and go up at least to severl hundred thousand dollar, ahain depending on size and features.
– asdfex
10 hours ago
As someone that works with both FPGAs and ethernet switches: why are those your two datapoints?
– DonFusili
10 hours ago
As someone that works with both FPGAs and ethernet switches: why are those your two datapoints?
– DonFusili
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
FPGA chips include both logic and programmable connections between logic elements, while ASICs include only the logic.
You'd be amazed at how much chip area is devoted to the "connection fabric" in an FPGA — it's easily 90% or more of the chip. This means that FPGAs use at least 10× the chip area of an equivalent ASIC, and chip area is expensive!
It costs a certain amount to do all of the processing on a given silicon wafer, no matter how many individual chips are on it. Therefore, to a first approximation, the chip cost is directly proportional to its area. However, there are several factors that make it worse than that. First, larger chips mean that there are fewer usable sites on the wafer to begin with — wafers are round, chips are square, and a lot of area is lost around the edges. And defect densities tend to be constant across the wafer, which means that the probability of getting a chip without a defect (i.e., "yield") goes down with chip size.
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Another key driver of cost is verification.
FPGAs need to be individually tested before sale. This is partly to ensure that all of the thousands to several million routing interconnects and logic cells are functional. The verification however also involves characterisation and speed grade binning - determining how fast the silicon can operate and that the speed and propagation delays of all the many interconnects and cells are suitably matched to the timing models for its grade.
For ASIC designs, testing is typically simpler - a yes-no does the design perform as expected. As such the time required for verification is likely far less, and thus cheaper to perform.
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is one (more) important point which is usually overlooked, process technology.
FPGAs that have high market share are manufactured with cutting edge technology. To be more specific, Kintex-7 FPGAs have TSMC 28nm process and their shipment started in 2011[1]. TSMC had started mass production of 28nm in the same year[2].
[1] Chang said: "Our 28-nm entered volume production last year
and contributed 2 percent of 4Q11's wafer revenue."
[2] Xilinx ships first 28nm Kintex-7 FPGAs (By Clive Maxfield,
03.21.11)
I don't know the process of the ethernet switches, but most of the ASIC design companies don't follow the cutting edge technology. It doesn't make sense for foundries as well.
The following chart shows TSMC's revenue by technology (1Q18). Even in 2018, 39% of the revenue comes from technologies older than 28nm. If we think about the number of chips, it is not hard to imagine that more than half of ASICs are today manufactured with technologies older than 7-year-old Kintex-7.
As a conclusion, process technology is one of the factors that make FPGAs more expensive. I don't claim it is a dominant factor, but significant enough to be considered.
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
FPGA chips include both logic and programmable connections between logic elements, while ASICs include only the logic.
You'd be amazed at how much chip area is devoted to the "connection fabric" in an FPGA — it's easily 90% or more of the chip. This means that FPGAs use at least 10× the chip area of an equivalent ASIC, and chip area is expensive!
It costs a certain amount to do all of the processing on a given silicon wafer, no matter how many individual chips are on it. Therefore, to a first approximation, the chip cost is directly proportional to its area. However, there are several factors that make it worse than that. First, larger chips mean that there are fewer usable sites on the wafer to begin with — wafers are round, chips are square, and a lot of area is lost around the edges. And defect densities tend to be constant across the wafer, which means that the probability of getting a chip without a defect (i.e., "yield") goes down with chip size.
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
FPGA chips include both logic and programmable connections between logic elements, while ASICs include only the logic.
You'd be amazed at how much chip area is devoted to the "connection fabric" in an FPGA — it's easily 90% or more of the chip. This means that FPGAs use at least 10× the chip area of an equivalent ASIC, and chip area is expensive!
It costs a certain amount to do all of the processing on a given silicon wafer, no matter how many individual chips are on it. Therefore, to a first approximation, the chip cost is directly proportional to its area. However, there are several factors that make it worse than that. First, larger chips mean that there are fewer usable sites on the wafer to begin with — wafers are round, chips are square, and a lot of area is lost around the edges. And defect densities tend to be constant across the wafer, which means that the probability of getting a chip without a defect (i.e., "yield") goes down with chip size.
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
FPGA chips include both logic and programmable connections between logic elements, while ASICs include only the logic.
You'd be amazed at how much chip area is devoted to the "connection fabric" in an FPGA — it's easily 90% or more of the chip. This means that FPGAs use at least 10× the chip area of an equivalent ASIC, and chip area is expensive!
It costs a certain amount to do all of the processing on a given silicon wafer, no matter how many individual chips are on it. Therefore, to a first approximation, the chip cost is directly proportional to its area. However, there are several factors that make it worse than that. First, larger chips mean that there are fewer usable sites on the wafer to begin with — wafers are round, chips are square, and a lot of area is lost around the edges. And defect densities tend to be constant across the wafer, which means that the probability of getting a chip without a defect (i.e., "yield") goes down with chip size.
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
FPGA chips include both logic and programmable connections between logic elements, while ASICs include only the logic.
You'd be amazed at how much chip area is devoted to the "connection fabric" in an FPGA — it's easily 90% or more of the chip. This means that FPGAs use at least 10× the chip area of an equivalent ASIC, and chip area is expensive!
It costs a certain amount to do all of the processing on a given silicon wafer, no matter how many individual chips are on it. Therefore, to a first approximation, the chip cost is directly proportional to its area. However, there are several factors that make it worse than that. First, larger chips mean that there are fewer usable sites on the wafer to begin with — wafers are round, chips are square, and a lot of area is lost around the edges. And defect densities tend to be constant across the wafer, which means that the probability of getting a chip without a defect (i.e., "yield") goes down with chip size.
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
edited 11 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
answered 12 hours ago
Dave Tweed♦
114k9140252
114k9140252
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Another key driver of cost is verification.
FPGAs need to be individually tested before sale. This is partly to ensure that all of the thousands to several million routing interconnects and logic cells are functional. The verification however also involves characterisation and speed grade binning - determining how fast the silicon can operate and that the speed and propagation delays of all the many interconnects and cells are suitably matched to the timing models for its grade.
For ASIC designs, testing is typically simpler - a yes-no does the design perform as expected. As such the time required for verification is likely far less, and thus cheaper to perform.
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Another key driver of cost is verification.
FPGAs need to be individually tested before sale. This is partly to ensure that all of the thousands to several million routing interconnects and logic cells are functional. The verification however also involves characterisation and speed grade binning - determining how fast the silicon can operate and that the speed and propagation delays of all the many interconnects and cells are suitably matched to the timing models for its grade.
For ASIC designs, testing is typically simpler - a yes-no does the design perform as expected. As such the time required for verification is likely far less, and thus cheaper to perform.
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Another key driver of cost is verification.
FPGAs need to be individually tested before sale. This is partly to ensure that all of the thousands to several million routing interconnects and logic cells are functional. The verification however also involves characterisation and speed grade binning - determining how fast the silicon can operate and that the speed and propagation delays of all the many interconnects and cells are suitably matched to the timing models for its grade.
For ASIC designs, testing is typically simpler - a yes-no does the design perform as expected. As such the time required for verification is likely far less, and thus cheaper to perform.
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
Another key driver of cost is verification.
FPGAs need to be individually tested before sale. This is partly to ensure that all of the thousands to several million routing interconnects and logic cells are functional. The verification however also involves characterisation and speed grade binning - determining how fast the silicon can operate and that the speed and propagation delays of all the many interconnects and cells are suitably matched to the timing models for its grade.
For ASIC designs, testing is typically simpler - a yes-no does the design perform as expected. As such the time required for verification is likely far less, and thus cheaper to perform.
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
answered 10 hours ago
Tom Carpenter
36.8k265110
36.8k265110
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is one (more) important point which is usually overlooked, process technology.
FPGAs that have high market share are manufactured with cutting edge technology. To be more specific, Kintex-7 FPGAs have TSMC 28nm process and their shipment started in 2011[1]. TSMC had started mass production of 28nm in the same year[2].
[1] Chang said: "Our 28-nm entered volume production last year
and contributed 2 percent of 4Q11's wafer revenue."
[2] Xilinx ships first 28nm Kintex-7 FPGAs (By Clive Maxfield,
03.21.11)
I don't know the process of the ethernet switches, but most of the ASIC design companies don't follow the cutting edge technology. It doesn't make sense for foundries as well.
The following chart shows TSMC's revenue by technology (1Q18). Even in 2018, 39% of the revenue comes from technologies older than 28nm. If we think about the number of chips, it is not hard to imagine that more than half of ASICs are today manufactured with technologies older than 7-year-old Kintex-7.
As a conclusion, process technology is one of the factors that make FPGAs more expensive. I don't claim it is a dominant factor, but significant enough to be considered.
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is one (more) important point which is usually overlooked, process technology.
FPGAs that have high market share are manufactured with cutting edge technology. To be more specific, Kintex-7 FPGAs have TSMC 28nm process and their shipment started in 2011[1]. TSMC had started mass production of 28nm in the same year[2].
[1] Chang said: "Our 28-nm entered volume production last year
and contributed 2 percent of 4Q11's wafer revenue."
[2] Xilinx ships first 28nm Kintex-7 FPGAs (By Clive Maxfield,
03.21.11)
I don't know the process of the ethernet switches, but most of the ASIC design companies don't follow the cutting edge technology. It doesn't make sense for foundries as well.
The following chart shows TSMC's revenue by technology (1Q18). Even in 2018, 39% of the revenue comes from technologies older than 28nm. If we think about the number of chips, it is not hard to imagine that more than half of ASICs are today manufactured with technologies older than 7-year-old Kintex-7.
As a conclusion, process technology is one of the factors that make FPGAs more expensive. I don't claim it is a dominant factor, but significant enough to be considered.
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
There is one (more) important point which is usually overlooked, process technology.
FPGAs that have high market share are manufactured with cutting edge technology. To be more specific, Kintex-7 FPGAs have TSMC 28nm process and their shipment started in 2011[1]. TSMC had started mass production of 28nm in the same year[2].
[1] Chang said: "Our 28-nm entered volume production last year
and contributed 2 percent of 4Q11's wafer revenue."
[2] Xilinx ships first 28nm Kintex-7 FPGAs (By Clive Maxfield,
03.21.11)
I don't know the process of the ethernet switches, but most of the ASIC design companies don't follow the cutting edge technology. It doesn't make sense for foundries as well.
The following chart shows TSMC's revenue by technology (1Q18). Even in 2018, 39% of the revenue comes from technologies older than 28nm. If we think about the number of chips, it is not hard to imagine that more than half of ASICs are today manufactured with technologies older than 7-year-old Kintex-7.
As a conclusion, process technology is one of the factors that make FPGAs more expensive. I don't claim it is a dominant factor, but significant enough to be considered.
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
There is one (more) important point which is usually overlooked, process technology.
FPGAs that have high market share are manufactured with cutting edge technology. To be more specific, Kintex-7 FPGAs have TSMC 28nm process and their shipment started in 2011[1]. TSMC had started mass production of 28nm in the same year[2].
[1] Chang said: "Our 28-nm entered volume production last year
and contributed 2 percent of 4Q11's wafer revenue."
[2] Xilinx ships first 28nm Kintex-7 FPGAs (By Clive Maxfield,
03.21.11)
I don't know the process of the ethernet switches, but most of the ASIC design companies don't follow the cutting edge technology. It doesn't make sense for foundries as well.
The following chart shows TSMC's revenue by technology (1Q18). Even in 2018, 39% of the revenue comes from technologies older than 28nm. If we think about the number of chips, it is not hard to imagine that more than half of ASICs are today manufactured with technologies older than 7-year-old Kintex-7.
As a conclusion, process technology is one of the factors that make FPGAs more expensive. I don't claim it is a dominant factor, but significant enough to be considered.
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
answered 24 mins ago
ahmedus
6421216
6421216
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f405520%2fwhy-are-fpgas-so-expensive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
I think someone have made Ph.D. thesis in business science on the subject. It is not tech question, it is more business question involving tech comparison of apples with oranges. The main rule is - development tools (products) are always more expensive than consumer products - for various reasons, from revenue/cost estimation, and market demand, and availability of competing (functional) products.
– Anonymous
12 hours ago
Have you ever looked into a high end FPGA and all the features it offers? It is far from trivial to make it all work well together and anticipate the possible interactions. A similarily complex ASIC is also expensive as hell in the same numbers, the point where ASICs become cheaper is when are sold in the many millions. And your comparison is quite unfair because ethernet switches generally do not contain nearly as much complexity as an FPGA with all the PLL and signal conditioning and thousands of GPIO pins.
– PlasmaHH
12 hours ago
I don't get the comparison. Fpga cost anywhere between 80 cents and 50000$ - depending on size and features. Ethernet switches start at 20 Dollar and go up at least to severl hundred thousand dollar, ahain depending on size and features.
– asdfex
10 hours ago
As someone that works with both FPGAs and ethernet switches: why are those your two datapoints?
– DonFusili
10 hours ago