Good questions. At this point, Achronix is not naming names in terms of its potential customers or potential licensees.
But there appear to be demands for their physical chip. Who would be the first embedded FPGA IP licensee would be an interesting story to follow.
The IP strategy will be a tough, tough row to hoe... But remember, they're pretty much attached to Intel's hip and that's probably, long term, where the ip makes sense... especially as guys like Mark Bohr are saying the fabless model is dead.
how so resistion, perhaps i don't understand your meaning/reasoning there ?
lets say you have a given IP (Intellectual Property) for a generic SIMD engine with the same throughput as Neon, then as the node shrink's you can fit more interconnected engines together, and so less limited not more.
you may want to give better discount's per cluster of SIMD engine as it shrinks to make your version more popular than the competitors in the global markets rather than the old school fixed pricing etc.
Yes that's true by old school thought, but actually 28 nm and below, there are substantial material changes on all critical layers, plus litho constraints, you can't just work with any drawing you have.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.