Semi Conscious
Comment
iniewski
negative_delay_buffer
Tabula, Achronix, eASIC have one thing in common: They are all non-public ...
FPGA vendors squabble over 28-nm market share
Dylan McGrath
8/1/2012 6:38 PM EDT
Why don't the numbers add up?
There is, by the way, some reasonable basis for the incongruity of the two firms' 28-nm market share estimates. According to Jon Olson, Xilinx' chief financial officer, Xilinx believes it has been winning at least 70 percent of available sockets for 28-nm programmable platforms. But, according to Olson, Xilinx believes it has a much broader portfolio of products at 28-nm than its smaller competitor, including the Xilinx' Zynq FPGAs, which integrate an ARM Cortex-A9, and the Virtex-7 H580T 3-D heterogeneous FPGA.
Altera is "defining a universe that is much smaller than our universe," Olson said in an interview. "We have two vectors to our portfolio that they don't even play in."
For its part, Altera believes it is taking more than two-thirds of the market at 28-nm. But Daane acknowledges that the figure he is using is not a straight number of sockets, but the dollar value of the sockets—based on the number of parts customers say they will buy—a number that is more vunerable to revision. "If you look at just the number of sockets, you can win a lot of sockets but none of which really matter in terms of value," Daane said.
In other words, both companies are estimating their market share at 28-nm in a subjective way that is highly dependent on what they consider their total available markets, which apparently are not quite the same.
For the record, Xilinx reported about $10 million in 28-nm FPGA revenue for its most recently concluded quarter, while Altera estimated about $8.2 million for the second quarter and more than $16 million cumulatively since the year began. Both companies expected 28-nm to increase to more than $20 million in the current quarter. (Daane said Altera's second quarter revenue would have been higher if not for a tight supply of 28-nm manufacturing capacity).
Delving into more depth on a direct competitor than you will typically hear from a CEO on a financial earnings call, Daane told analysts that Xilinx gets the majority of its 28-nm revenue from prototyping programs that deliver early revenue that does not become a reoccurring stream. By contrast, Altera's 28-nm revenue is from production design chips, nearly all for high-end applications, he said.
Olson strongly denied Daane's claims about the makeup of Xilinx' 28-nm revenue. "It is categorically not true," he said.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), unlike the presidential candidates, Xilinx and Altera won't be participating in any internationally televised debates later this year where their differences can be crystallized for the FPGA buying public. Customers will continue voting with their purchase orders. Polling data, for the 28-nm node and elsewhere, may not be reliable.
There is, by the way, some reasonable basis for the incongruity of the two firms' 28-nm market share estimates. According to Jon Olson, Xilinx' chief financial officer, Xilinx believes it has been winning at least 70 percent of available sockets for 28-nm programmable platforms. But, according to Olson, Xilinx believes it has a much broader portfolio of products at 28-nm than its smaller competitor, including the Xilinx' Zynq FPGAs, which integrate an ARM Cortex-A9, and the Virtex-7 H580T 3-D heterogeneous FPGA.
Altera is "defining a universe that is much smaller than our universe," Olson said in an interview. "We have two vectors to our portfolio that they don't even play in."
For its part, Altera believes it is taking more than two-thirds of the market at 28-nm. But Daane acknowledges that the figure he is using is not a straight number of sockets, but the dollar value of the sockets—based on the number of parts customers say they will buy—a number that is more vunerable to revision. "If you look at just the number of sockets, you can win a lot of sockets but none of which really matter in terms of value," Daane said.
In other words, both companies are estimating their market share at 28-nm in a subjective way that is highly dependent on what they consider their total available markets, which apparently are not quite the same.
For the record, Xilinx reported about $10 million in 28-nm FPGA revenue for its most recently concluded quarter, while Altera estimated about $8.2 million for the second quarter and more than $16 million cumulatively since the year began. Both companies expected 28-nm to increase to more than $20 million in the current quarter. (Daane said Altera's second quarter revenue would have been higher if not for a tight supply of 28-nm manufacturing capacity).
Delving into more depth on a direct competitor than you will typically hear from a CEO on a financial earnings call, Daane told analysts that Xilinx gets the majority of its 28-nm revenue from prototyping programs that deliver early revenue that does not become a reoccurring stream. By contrast, Altera's 28-nm revenue is from production design chips, nearly all for high-end applications, he said.
Olson strongly denied Daane's claims about the makeup of Xilinx' 28-nm revenue. "It is categorically not true," he said.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), unlike the presidential candidates, Xilinx and Altera won't be participating in any internationally televised debates later this year where their differences can be crystallized for the FPGA buying public. Customers will continue voting with their purchase orders. Polling data, for the 28-nm node and elsewhere, may not be reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
dylan.mcgrath
8/2/2012 3:48 PM EDT
Jack Harding, president and CEO of eSilicon Corp., is a well-known skeptic of the notion that FPGAs are displacing ASICs.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/eda-designline-blog/4033356/A-dissenting-opinion-on-the-programmable-imperative-
Gavrielov said during an interview earlier this year that he respects Harding and his opinion, but that the success of fabless ASIC vendors or "value chain producers" like eSilicon does not mean there is not a flight to FPGAs. On the contrary, Gavrielov argues, as the cost of doing an ASIC skyrockets, firms look first to outsource them and then, eventually, to skip them altogether and go with FPGAs. The success of Xilinx and that of eSilicon is not mutually exclusive, he argues. But, according to Gavrielov, the success of eSilicon and others like it supports the business of ASICs is at its sunset.
Sign in to Reply
dylan.mcgrath
8/2/2012 9:29 PM EDT
That should be "supports the theory that the business of ASICs is at its sunset."
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/2/2012 4:03 PM EDT
I think the flight to FPGA is pretty obvious, it is enough to check the number of ASIC starts annually...Jack is clearly biased as he is trying to promote eSilicon service so you can't blaming to claim otherwise...Kris
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/2/2012 8:32 PM EDT
Without a doubt. FPGAs are not succeeding on the other side of the spectrum however with the rise of GPGPUs.
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/2/2012 10:04 PM EDT
Interesting comment @KB3001...could we consider GPGPU as an ASIC?
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/3/2012 8:16 PM EDT
Not with the GP prefix :-) I think FPGAs are failing in the more general purpose end of the spectrum where GPUs are more and more dominant. Low programmer productivity remains FPGAs' Achilles Heel.
Sign in to Reply
LJL1
8/9/2012 3:23 AM EDT
GPGPUs are likely to be displaced by Intel's MIC (Many Integrated Cores) architecture. General delivery next quarter with 60-odd 4-thread Pentium-III-like cores.
Sign in to Reply
docdivakar
8/3/2012 3:39 PM EDT
While the two big boys are quibbling over who has more marbles, a third player is quietly making progress at a more advanced 22nm node. That would be Tabula, right here in Silicon Valley!
MP Divakar
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/3/2012 8:18 PM EDT
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We heard a lot about Tabula and Achronix but they have yet to deliver.
Sign in to Reply
dylan.mcgrath
8/3/2012 5:17 PM EDT
Both Tabula and Achronix are interesting companies with 22-nm FPGAs. But Xilinx and Altera don't seem to be worried about them. When will these upstarts truly make their presence felt?
Sign in to Reply
docdivakar
8/3/2012 6:12 PM EDT
Dylan, I haven't run into Steve Tieg (from Tabula) lately but you ask an interesting question. Tabula was already sampling a product with a major networking vendor (we all know who that is!) almost a year ago. I haven't kept up with Achronix.
MP Divakar
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/9/2012 12:13 PM EDT
Great points Dylan and MP Divakar, where is Tabula these days? Kris
Sign in to Reply
negative_delay_buffer
8/10/2012 10:46 AM EDT
Tabula, Achronix, eASIC have one thing in common: They are all non-public companies so they don't have to share their actual revenue results with analysts.
In keeping with the theme of this article, if I slap a party affiliation on them:
Tabula (Green Party), Achronix (Peace & Freedom), eASIC(Reform)...
Do you ever see these guys getting a podium at the debates??
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/10/2012 11:48 AM EDT
eAsic is low cost
Tabula is high performance
What is value proposition for Achronix?
Sign in to Reply