The primary reason startup companies spent so much money is because their Generation 1 device is almost never commercially viable. It typically works just fine, even hits key performance specs, but the price performance advantage offered is not sufficient to convince potential customers to move away from their current suppliers. This forces additional time and money to develop Gen 2 and usually Gen 3 devices before the entity can generate significant revenue at acceptable margins. This process adds 3-5 years and $30-50M of wasted capital from a VC perspective. I believe this is the greatest spending culprit for most startup companies. Jim
Keep praying @WaywardGeek...silicon industry has become very mature and real innovation is rare...it is quickly becoming another stable industry like car making for example...we have enjoyed the fun ride while it lasted for 50 years!...Kris
Kudos, Andreas, on a very cool engineering feat. There are niche markets where MPW runs can be a viable production solution, like military, rad-hard, and space. Not every company has to be the next Intel to be successful. However, the reality is that Moore's Law is failing, bit by bit. Fewer and fewer designs make it into the latest fab processes, and the companies that do production there are huge corporations. Rarely do we see the innovative startups that drove Silicon Valley's success, at least in the IC space.
I am personally focusing on the mixed signal space, where competitive analog is still reasonably affordable. Even so, at Triad Semi, we focus on reducing up-front NRE, providing quick turn, and lowering risk, as these are issues strangling the industry.
So, both you and I have moved into niches where we can innovate at small companies without insane levels of venture funding. That's where Moore's Law is failing us the most. We may still be on track for 28nm and even the next node, but the tech explosion cannot be sustained without the Darwinian competition between new ventures. What are the latest super cool new ideas being produced in 28nm? Well, yours of course, but in volume we're seeing Apple add 4 ARM cores to their iPads. I guess the iPad 4 big innovation will be 8 cores? Then 16? And Intel... 8 cores in my next laptop, with a bigger on-chip GPU? Is this really innovation? Yes, transistors are getting cheaper, but they're also getting dumber, because we just can't afford to enable all the innovators to go be creative in 28nm. I pray for a breakthrough like low cost direct-write e-beam, or something that will enable advanced silicon within reach of a traditional startup.
If silicon die is about 1cm2 which is fairly typical you would hundreds of part in 0.35um 6 inch wafer...in 65nm the wafer size would be much larger, 8 or 12 inches so you will get way more than few hundreds...
I will leave to Andreas to explain your scaling question...Kris
I can see how you can get to a few 100s of MPW parts in 65nm, but I can't see how this gets you to several hundred $ each for your chips.
Care to explain?
In the case your customers are paying this kind of price the second question would be how you plan to scale from a niche product to the mass-market?
No question FPGAs have had a huge impact, and by implication what's left for ASIC/SoC is going to be the higher end more costly designs which is a factor skewing the numbers.
But FPGAs are so cost effective and even power effecient that just about all but cutting edge, products or consumer products made in very large volumes simply cannot justify custom silicon compared to an FPGA solution.
For applications like the segment I'm in, they are absolute salvation. I've discussed with others before the trend towards ASIC and high integration and how small companies and niche markets that never sell things in million piece quantities can survive. The answer is simple. FPGA. The tools can be very affordable and the chips offer a huge amount of capability for very reasonable costs. There are even some out there with analog stuff in them, not to mention some pretty credible both hard and soft core CPU implementations.
The trend of replacing ASICs with FPGA started several years back and will continue with accelerated force. I remember standing at one of the large telecom trade shows showing with pride our ASIC with a Xilinx guy standing behind me and smiling. My demo board had one ASIC surrounded by 8 FPGAs! Kris
Having worked in the ASIC industry for 18+ years I have seen the costs skyrocket from 30K to 1.5million. The real cost was not the NRE but the engineering cost to develop, test/simulate, PCB development and system level efforts. These get really expensive as the chip complexity goes up. That said, if you are doing plain vanilla design with low volumes most work shifted from ASICs to FPGAs. FPGAs were taking over the lower end designs both due to time to market and cost. The numbers of ASIC designers started to fade as fewer and fewer designs were attempted and companies shifted to FPGAs. Using an FPGA for the basic designs makes a lot of sense. The ease of reprogramming and quick turn times offsets the increased chip cost (per part) by allowing faster time to market. The last few chips I worked on were between 1.25 to 2.5 million for NRE alone and took over a year with 8 to 12 engineers. These were the only chips that made sense to engineer due to volume and performance drivers.
Well said Andreas. A small number of skilled, experienced people can wear many hats, strategically pick only the tools they really need, and get better, more cost-effective results than younger, cheaper, "armies".
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.