📄 ch01.4.htm
字号:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML EXPERIMENTAL 970324//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe FrameMaker 5.5/HTML Export Filter">
<TITLE> 1.4 Economics of ASICs</TITLE></HEAD><!--#include file="top.html"--><!--#include file="header.html"-->
<DIV>
<P>[ <A HREF="CH01.htm">Chapter start</A> ] [ <A HREF="CH01.3.htm">Previous page</A> ] [ <A HREF="CH01.5.htm">Next page</A> ]</P><!--#include file="AmazonAsic.html"--><HR></DIV>
<H1 CLASS="Heading1">
<A NAME="pgfId=44056">
</A>
1.4 Economics of ASICs</H1>
<P CLASS="BodyAfterHead">
<A NAME="pgfId=44063">
</A>
In this section we shall discuss the economics of using ASICs in a product and compare the most popular types of ASICs: an FPGA, an MGA, and a CBIC. To make an economic comparison between these alternatives, we consider the ASIC itself as a product and examine the components of product cost: fixed costs and variable costs. Making cost comparisons is dangerous—costs change rapidly and the semiconductor industry is notorious for keeping its costs, prices, and pricing strategy closely guarded secrets. The figures in the following sections are approximate and used to illustrate the different components of cost.</P>
<DIV>
<H2 CLASS="Heading2">
<A NAME="pgfId=1999">
</A>
1.4.1 Comparison Between ASIC Technologies</H2>
<P CLASS="BodyAfterHead">
<A NAME="pgfId=2003">
</A>
The most obvious economic factor in making a choice between the different ASIC types is the <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
part cost</SPAN>
. Part costs vary enormously—you can pay anywhere from a few dollars to several hundreds of dollars for an ASIC. In general, however, FPGAs are more expensive per gate than MGAs, which are, in turn, more expensive than CBICs. For example, a 0.5 <SPAN CLASS="Symbol">
m</SPAN>
m, 20 k-gate array might cost 0.01–0.02 cents/gate (for more than 10,000 parts) or $2–$4 per part, but an equivalent FPGA might be $20. The price per gate for an FPGA to implement the same function is typically 2–5 times the cost of an MGA or CBIC. </P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=2013">
</A>
Given that an FPGA is more expensive than an MGA, which is more expensive than a CBIC, when and why does it make sense to choose a more expensive part? Is the increased flexibility of an FPGA worth the extra cost per part? Given that an MGA or CBIC is specially tailored for each customer, there are extra hidden costs associated with this step that we should consider. To make a true comparison between the different ASIC technologies, we shall quantify some of these costs. </P>
</DIV>
<DIV>
<H2 CLASS="Heading2">
<A NAME="pgfId=2021">
</A>
1.4.2 Product Cost</H2>
<P CLASS="BodyAfterHead">
<A NAME="pgfId=108953">
</A>
The total cost of any product can be separated into <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
fixed costs</SPAN>
and <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
variable costs</SPAN>
: </P>
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableEqn">
<A NAME="pgfId=108983">
</A>
total product cost = fixed product cost + variable product cost <SPAN CLASS="Symbol">
¥</SPAN>
products sold</P>
</TD>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableEqnNumber">
<A NAME="pgfId=108985">
</A>
(1.1)</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=9662">
</A>
Fixed costs are independent of <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
sales volume</SPAN>
—the number of products sold. However, the fixed costs amortized per product sold (fixed costs divided by products sold) decrease as sales volume increases. Variable costs include the cost of the parts used in the product, assembly costs, and other manufacturing costs.</P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=9923">
</A>
Let us look more closely at the parts in a product. If we want to buy ASICs to assemble our product, the total part cost is </P>
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableEqn">
<A NAME="pgfId=109027">
</A>
total part cost = fixed part cost + variable cost per part <SPAN CLASS="Symbol">
¥</SPAN>
volume of parts.</P>
</TD>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableEqnNumber">
<A NAME="pgfId=109029">
</A>
(1.2)</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=5995">
</A>
Our fixed cost when we use an FPGA is low—we just have to buy the software and any programming equipment. The fixed part costs for an MGA or CBIC are higher and include the costs of the masks, simulation, and test program development. We shall discuss these extra costs in more detail in Sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4. Figure 1.11 shows a <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
break-even graph</SPAN>
that compares the total part cost for an FPGA, MGA, and a CBIC with the following assumptions:</P>
<UL>
<LI CLASS="BulletFirst">
<A NAME="pgfId=58306">
</A>
FPGA fixed cost is $21,800, part cost is $39.</LI>
<LI CLASS="BulletList">
<A NAME="pgfId=58308">
</A>
MGA fixed cost is $86,000, part cost is $10.</LI>
<LI CLASS="BulletLast">
<A NAME="pgfId=58311">
</A>
CBIC fixed cost is $146,000, part cost is $8.</LI>
</UL>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=58307">
</A>
At low volumes, the MGA and the CBIC are more expensive because of their higher fixed costs. The total part costs of two alternative types of ASIC are equal at the <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
break-even volume</SPAN>
. In Figure 1.11 the break-even volume for the FPGA and the MGA is about 2000 parts. The break-even volume between the FPGA and the CBIC is about 4000 parts. The break-even volume between the MGA and the CBIC is higher—at about 20,000 parts. </P>
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableFigure">
<A NAME="pgfId=14713">
</A>
<IMG SRC="CH01-11.gif" ALIGN="BASELINE">
</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableFigureTitle">
<A NAME="pgfId=14716">
</A>
FIGURE 1.11 A break-even analysis for an FPGA, a masked gate array (MGA) and a custom cell-based ASIC (CBIC). The break-even volume between two technologies is the point at which the total cost of parts are equal. These numbers are very approximate.</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=55645">
</A>
We shall describe how to calculate the fixed part costs next. Following that we shall discuss how we came up with cost per part of $39, $10, and $8 for the FPGA, MGA, and CBIC.</P>
</DIV>
<DIV>
<H2 CLASS="Heading2">
<A NAME="pgfId=6839">
</A>
1.4.3 ASIC Fixed Costs</H2>
<P CLASS="BodyAfterHead">
<A NAME="pgfId=9730">
</A>
Figure 1.12 shows a spreadsheet, “Fixed Costs,” that calculates the fixed part costs associated with ASIC design. </P>
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableFigure">
<A NAME="pgfId=14652">
</A>
<IMG SRC="CH01-12.gif" ALIGN="BASELINE">
</P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableFigureTitle">
<A NAME="pgfId=14654">
</A>
FIGURE 1.12 A spreadsheet, “Fixed Costs,” for a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a masked gate array (MGA), and a cell-based ASIC (CBIC). These costs can vary wildly.</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=59170">
</A>
The <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
training cost</SPAN>
includes the cost of the time to learn any new <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
electronic design automation</SPAN>
(<SPAN CLASS="Definition">
EDA</SPAN>
) system. For example, a new FPGA design system might require a few days to learn; a new gate-array or cell-based design system might require taking a course. Figure 1.12 assumes that the cost of an engineer (including overhead, benefits, infrastructure, and so on) is between $100,000 and $200,000 per year or $2000 to $4000 per week (in the United States in 1990s dollars). </P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=9790">
</A>
Next we consider the <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
hardware and software cost</SPAN>
for ASIC design. Figure 1.12 shows some typical figures, but you can spend anywhere from $1000 to $1 million (and more) on ASIC design software and the necessary infrastructure.</P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=9989">
</A>
We try to measure <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
productivity</SPAN>
of an ASIC designer in gates (or transistors) per day. This is like trying to predict how long it takes to dig a hole, and the number of gates per day an engineer averages varies wildly. ASIC design productivity must increase as ASIC sizes increase and will depend on experience, design tools, and the ASIC complexity. If we are using similar design methods, design productivity ought to be independent of the type of ASIC, but FPGA design software is usually available as a complete bundle on a PC. This means that it is often easier to learn and use than semicustom ASIC design tools.</P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=58286">
</A>
Every ASIC has to pass a <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
production test</SPAN>
to make sure that it works. With modern test tools the generation of any test circuits on each ASIC that are needed for production testing can be automatic, but it still involves a cost for <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
design for test</SPAN>
. An FPGA is tested by the manufacturer before it is sold to you and before you program it. You are still paying for testing an FPGA, but it is a hidden cost folded into the part cost of the FPGA. You do have to pay for any <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
programming costs</SPAN>
for an FPGA, but we can include these in the hardware and software cost.</P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=58291">
</A>
The <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
nonrecurring-engineering </SPAN>
(<SPAN CLASS="Definition">
NRE</SPAN>
) charge includes the cost of work done by the ASIC vendor and the cost of the masks. The production test uses sets of test inputs called <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
test vectors</SPAN>
, often many thousands of them. Most ASIC vendors require simulation to generate test vectors and test programs for production testing, and will charge for a <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
test-program development cost</SPAN>
. The number of masks required by an ASIC during fabrication can range from three or four (for a gate array) to 15 or more (for a CBIC). Total mask costs can range from $5000 to $50,000 or more. The total NRE charge can range from $10,000 to $300,000 or more and will vary with volume and the size of the ASIC. If you commit to high volumes (above 100,000 parts), the vendor may waive the NRE charge. The NRE charge may also include the costs of software tools, design verification, and prototype samples. </P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=2146">
</A>
If your design does not work the first time, you have to complete a further design <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
pass</SPAN>
(<SPAN CLASS="Definition">
turn</SPAN>
or <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
spin</SPAN>
) that requires additional NRE charges. Normally you sign a contract (sign off a design) with an ASIC vendor that guarantees first-pass success—this means that if you designed your ASIC according to rules specified by the vendor, then the vendor guarantees that the silicon will perform according to the simulation or you get your money back. This is why the difference between semicustom and full-custom design styles is so important—the ASIC vendor will not (and cannot) guarantee your design will work if you use any full-custom design techniques. </P>
<P CLASS="Body">
<A NAME="pgfId=46379">
</A>
Nowadays it is almost routine to have an ASIC work on the first pass. However, if your design does fail, it is little consolation to have a second pass for free if your company goes bankrupt in the meantime. Figure 1.13 shows a <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
profit model</SPAN>
that represents the <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
profit flow</SPAN>
during the <SPAN CLASS="Definition">
product lifetime</SPAN>
. Using this model, we can estimate the lost profit due to any delay. </P>
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD ROWSPAN="1" COLSPAN="1">
<P CLASS="TableFigure">
<A NAME="pgfId=10557">
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -