Others in the industry may still regard Achrnoix' entry in the embedded FPGA IP business as a bit of a distraction for the start-up.
There has long been pent-up demand for FPGAs among volume consumer
SoC companies making handsets or tablets, Holt argued. Look no
further than Altera's family of low-cost, low-power FPGAs for the consumer market. Another example is SiliconBlue
Technologies, which was acquired by Lattice Semiconductor, which targeted its low-end FPGAs for consumer electronics devices such
as smartphones and media tablets.
The difference here is that
Achronix plans to license FPGA fabric as IP so that consumer chip
companies can use “just enough FPGAs” in their SoCs, Holt explained.
The reason consumer electronics chip companies are clamoring for FPGA
solutions is "risk mitigation,” said Holt.
“Programmability can limit the number of tape-outs.” As the consumer
SoC’s die gets larger, it’s helpful to use part of the die
Add to that, standards are constantly
evolving for consumer products. “There are things that hardwired SoCs
just can’t do,” Holt noted.
Moreover, FPGAs excel at doing
complex logic very fast. “FPGAs are good at flexible acceleration of
certain functions” on SoCs, explained Holt.
Achronix plans to announce its first embedded FPGA IP licensee in the first quarter of 2013.
out that the design cost for 22-/20-nm chips could range from $20 million to $50
million, according to recent cost estimates by Cadence, Holt said SoC
companies would have to sell as many as 60 million to 100 million units to break even. Minimizing the number of tape-outs becomes extremely
important for SoC cost savings, he added.
long as there are SoC vendors looking to use FPGA fabric in a portion of
their SoCs, IP seems like good business for Achronix. The company
believes it can leverage the technology it has already developed.
Holt said Intel's "one-stop shop" is a huge advantage when compared to working with
other foundries that may require a fabless chip company to work with many partners. More important, being an Intel customer confers credibility and quality assurance, especially among global supply managers. “Sure, we may be paying extra for wafer cost," Holt said.
"But think about the high yield rate Intel brings. This is paying off for
Holt said Achronix is still planning to go public in 2014, but “it’s not like my ego is tied to the
IPO.” The first thing Achronix must do is “become a profitable
company within the 12 to18 months” after it starts sampling new FPGAs.
IMO what FPGA vendors need (and what they've always needed) is to open up their architectures and bit stream formats so that FLOSS software developers can take a crack at it. There are myriad applications for FPGAs that aren't progressing well because it's too cumbersome to use the vendors' tools. These include reconfigurable computing and specialized high-performance parallel architecture. It's just too hard to make progress in these areas with vendor tools so the people working in those areas simply do it in other ways, causing FPGA vendors to miss out on a lot of opportunity and miss out on the savings of letting others write their tools.
These small FPGA companies need some good 3rd-party tools. They can hand off the synthesis to Synplify, but somebody needs to make some 3rd-party place & route tool that can service all these little FPGA companies. Surely 80% of the work is common to different architectures.
We hear even with Intel matching TSMC with die-pricing (a loss leader for Intel), Achronix 22nm part is not competitive (power and leakage) with other FPGA.
why part not sampling
why Achronix needs to change business model
The devices announced by Archronix are designed for backend fabric, they are loaded with serdes. It seems odd that Holt is talking about mobile applications: power management is very weak in FPGAs, maybe they have a different kind of configurability in mind, to knit together some Intel IP.
I have not seen anything about design software yet from this company, which is normally a big concern for FPGAs. It makes me think Intel may have more of a hand in the overall enterprise here than is evident at this point.
The last succesful FPGA start-up company was Actel, who shipped their first product in 1988. You could say "it's been a while since then". Indeed, but not for lack of trying. More than 25 start-ups have tried and failed. Most failed by the nature of their FPGAs, and a few failed by the market barriers erected by the four FPGA vendors. You cannot make a business out of FPGAs by making a new FPGA that is slightly faster or slightly cheaper than what is out there. To succeed you must double the FPGA performance or cut the price-per-LUT by half. Acronix long ago claimed to have done the first of these, but they could not deliver on that promise, even with Intel's fanciest process. So they change the business model to survive for a little while longer. Everybody comments on how tough the IP business is, but the FPGA business is much tougher. Their new tack is an acknowledgement of this fact.