for all those who believe in ASICs....

formatting link
?articleID=181501385

Well, I guess that about wraps it up for the attempt to disguise ASIC design as something different...

Austin

Reply to
Austin Lesea
Loading thread data ...

Some of you guys must go back to Wilf Corrigan's days at Fairchild and know the players at LSI. I suppose LSI couldn't move while this famously emollient character was in the driving seat ;-)

Did LSI ever think of investing in X or A?

Austin Lesea wrote

formatting link
?articleID=181501385

Reply to
Tim

formatting link
?articleID=181501385

Different than the ASIC's that a number of fabless vendors produce that we call FPGA's? The business case for in-house fab, or fabless, has been a difficult call for the last two decades, and all I see from this announcement is that AMD reached the point where investing in 45nm fabs wasn't in the cards with their current volumes. When you shed your fab, with it goes your ASIC business.

There are still plenty of places to take your ASIC design, or there wouldn't be the ASIC's produced by fabless FPGA vendors.

Reply to
fpga_toys

toys,

That was the link to LSI logic dropping their structured ASIC business.

Aust> Aust>

Reply to
austin

And that link also states:

"Last year, LSI Logic also said it would sell its 8-in. wafer manufacturing plant in Gresham, Ore., as it continues to transition to a fabless manufacturing strategy."

It simply doesn't make sense to by and be profitable remarketing someone elses fab services.

Reply to
fpga_toys

I've objected nicely to your changing my handle from fpga_toys, to simply toys as the obvious intent in doing so was to play the childish name altering riddicule game.

So, I suggest that maybe the posters here might find it equally entertaining if we play the same game with your time .... such as altering Aus-tin to be tin-Aus-whole

Reply to
fpga_toys

formatting link
?articleID=181501385

In the '80s small ASIC designs (large TTL designs) became PLD's. In the '90's small ASIC designs (large PLD designs) became FPGAs. In this decade small ASIC designs are still becoming FPGAs, just larger ones.

ASIC are now system level integration, not logic subsystems. And the ASIC market continues to grow:

formatting link

ASIC sales in 2005 are estimated to be about $20B, while Xilinx's sales are about $1.3B.

ASIC's have always been something different .... bigger, faster, and larger market.

Reply to
fpga_toys

Mr Anonymous, who hides his name, but doesn't want to be called "toys": Why do you bring up AMD, which was not at all mentioned in the press release. Just to stir the pot and create additional controversy?

There is understandable glee in the FPGA camp when one of the most ardent proponents of "Structured ASICs" (the "FPGA-killer technology") finally, after many unsuccessful money-losing years, throws in the towel. Basta, finito, kaput. So it is now clear again, as it has always been: There are ASICs (with their well-known technical advantages and economically-based disadvantages) and there are FPGAs (not as big, not as fast, and not as frugal, but increasingly popular for reasonable designs in reasonble volume, and far less risky). Both camps will survive, but the trend is in favor of FPGAs.

Please, don't throw any more of your venom at this newsgroup. You have stopped being entertaining or informative, a long time ago. Peter Alfke, from home.

Reply to
Peter Alfke

Because, they were one of the most vocal camps against fabless technology a few years back. That we now have LSI going fabless is a material part of the discussion.

I agree both will survive to some extent for a very long time. Till at least until the next technology comes along and replaces FPGA's as the small ASIC step child, as FPGA's did PLDs in the last decade. The the title the Austin puts forth, and the one liner in the body is laced with sarcastic riddicule of the ASIC camp with the assumed thought that somehow Xilinx has killed ASIC's. The fairy land here, is that Xilinx has grown to be a pretty large step child to the ASIC industry, and still growing - but that is hardly making Xilinx a giant slayer.

In fact, the most obvious thing missed in Austins post, is that he is openly mocking the very potential clients that Xilinx needs for it's high end market .... smaller ASIC designers wishing to move down to FPGAs to balance NRE and production run costs. That is not going to win Xilinx those customers.

The venom is on your and Austin's part. Like where in the hell do you get off on asking someone to leave CAF because they disagree with you?

I say take a flying hike yourself .... and as another reader commented to this thread via email earlier .... that is "Mr. Toys to you".

Controversy, disagreement, debate, even when very passionate, NEVER EVER justify your and Austins directly personal attacks in this forum.

Since you continue to press Tin-Aus's slur in your own way, let's adopt "Peter Principle" for you, if you want to continue making discussions in this forum personal.

Otherwise, stop being childish, get over the handle I use, and stick to the facts with informed debate (however lively that gets) as address your position responsibly and professionally. I'm hardly the only person using a handle in this forum ... and you have no right in hell to riddicule anyone that does.

Reply to
fpga_toys

hmm ... I got that slightly wr>aust> > toys,

I was expecting your reply to be "That's _Mister_ Toys to you."

Reply to
fpga_toys

fpga snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote: [...]

John,

You're not the only one using a handle on this newsgroup, and of others that do, if they are long, they sometimes get abbreviated, just like yours. Austin isn't the only one that does it, and he doesn't do it just to you.

Why do you insist on dragging this nonsense out? Why not sign the posts like you did when you first started posting under this alias?

formatting link

If you don't want to use John Bass, fine - pick a fake name.

I'll never defend Austin's attitude on this newsgroup, but fpga_toys is obviously not a name, and "toys" is not a slur. But I suspect you know that, because more than a month went by before you objected to him using it. And even if you truely think it is a slur, you could end all this stupidity by simply added four more characters to the end of your post. I'm quite certain that that little gesture, based upon past history, will get Austin and everyone else to addressing you in a manner that you would not find offensive.

This newsgroup is a pretty professional newsgroup, and addressing the person by name that one is replying to is a polite practice. That you haven't provided a name recently isn't anyone elses fault.

As for this topic, I agree that Austin's subject on the original post was someone misleading, but that's par for the course. All the information was made available for someone to make their own decision on the matter.

Marc

Reply to
Marc Randolph

Actually, Austin has addressed replys to me as John back in Jan. And despite my objections, or specifically because I objected, he's choosen to push the toy button as well as other much more direct attacks. I was polite and firm asking that he stop.

Two, or three, or more can play his game. As I suggested quiet some time ago, if he wants to play nasty that way, then he becomes responsible for setting the tone and nature in which others can, and will, interact with him as well.

Reply to
fpga_toys

I wonder if any of the ASIC designers would design a home grown FPGA with customer specific cores to provide a multiplatform programmable reusable part for high volume to avoid Xilinx?

Given they are starting with an ASIC budget and ASIC tallent, do they even need Xilinx for reusable/retargetable FPGA like parts?

Reply to
fpga_toys

I couldn't agree more. The soaring ego combined with the chip on the shoulder is really getting tiresome. Reminds me of the level of discourse on sci.electronics. What a shame.

-Jeff

Reply to
Jeff Cunningham

John, (or should I call you Mr. Bass?)

Sorry to hear you are this upset, John.

I will promise not to shorten your name (or alias) in the future.

My posting was a news item, of LSI dropping their structured ASIC offering.

My second posting was to direct you to the subject of the first posting (you seemed to be wandering somewhere that I could not follow).

My opinion (no secret) is that ASICs are moving into an area where only a few can afford to develop them, and as such, the number of design starts has fallen off. But, the amount of money has actually increased (due to their getting more expensive to develop, and those that do get done, covering huge new markets - like gaming consoles).

Not counting microprocessors, and memories, Xilinx is now the second largest vendor of "logic" (which includes ASICs, per Gartner-DataQuest).

It has been great to have the ASIC vendors treat FPGAs with such disdain, and contempt. While they basked in their obvious unassailable superiority, we just ate their lunch. With great margins, too.

Will ASICs go away? Of course not. Will they continue to be the growth industry they were? In my opinion, that sun already set. Will they continue to make a lot of money? Of course. At least until the customers get tired of paying too much, for too little.

I recommend you look into the story of steel mills in the US. They ruled the world. Then these little mini-mills started competing, and the US super mills said "our steel is so high quality, we will give the low grade steel business to the mini-mills. Won't even notice the drop in volume, and we will make more money." Then, after a while, the mini-mills made better steel. The big guys said, "well, that wasn't as profitable as it used to be, so what the heck." We all know what happened. The US steel business collapsed. I see ASICs in the same boat. I can see the ASIC board room discussion, "we will let the FPGAs have those sockets: they were getting too tough to win anyway. No profit left in it. They can't do what we do, so we don't have to worry. We will just go on to the more profitable markets..."

Austin

Reply to
Austin Lesea

Yess... OK, until you start to drift a little in the last sentence...

I love Austin on a roll..... :)

Take a deep breath, and read what you wrote above: ASICs will NEVER go away. Points to ponder :

** An FPGA is also an ASIC - remember "Application Specific Integrated Circuit" Some very big players have large revenue streams in targeted silicon. (ASICs) As soon as any given market gets large enough, they can afford to take the performance gain of an ASIC. ** look at this news item
formatting link
?articleID=181501574 ** look at the devices comming from ST ** Ponder that the mini-mills just might be Lattice and Actel, and Xilinx might be the larger insular, belligerant model.

I think it was my Gran used to say "Pride comes before a fall" ?

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville
[ ... ]

I hope you'll pardon my jumping in, but I think this is where things started to go wrong. While this may arguably be related to the FPGA business in general, it seems pretty clear to me that it's not related to anything like architecture or development.

Other than as an ego boost, it's pointless anyway: given that this newsgroup is devoted specifically to FPGAs to start with, the only people here to see the post are already reasonably convinced that FPGAs are/can be useful, and most of use use them more or less regularly already.

--
    Later,
    Jerry.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jerry Coffin

either is fine.

Actually the name thing was a minor nit ... regaining respectful discourse simply required being firmer about the alternatives.

I assume this implies the personal attacks are likely to cease too ... which is great progress.

The point, is that ASIC foundry services are tied to operating a fab, as a side product to sell unused capacity. Worked a while for Symbios Logic before LSI took them over and closed the local Fort Collins fab (leaving the ASIC center). With LSI getting out of the fab business, that pretty much dictates they will soon be out of the ASIC business too. The globalization and migration of fabs changes business strategies over time, but isn't the ASIC vs. FPGA issue you suggest.

Interesting you discuss both "great margins" and "paying too much, for too little" as they are related, and create the same mini-mill dynamics you suggest below:

Domestic Steel and Domestic Fabs have a lot in common regarding their history and future. First, while history records the sequence of events, the cause and effect will be argued for decades, if not centuries. With US steel, globalization was a major factor ... the shifting of production (IE Consuption) combined with huge problems with domestic supply (from strip mining to labor). As the US transitioned to building with concrete and got out of building heavy equipment and boats, the demand for finished steel in the US softened -- in part due to rising prices of production across the board. Globalization however, determined why US steel production fell as moot, just as Globalization in the silicon industry has seen our fabs and production shift off shore. We import finished goods, not raw materials.

History says that where goes production, also goes design and the jobs. A number of industry leaders have argued that point for some time, citing both US Steel and the home entainment industry as clear examples. They argue that we need the fabs to stay here. However, the market presures caused by competing with fabless companies, set the course. The end of that course is that where the fabs went, is where the finished products will come from, including FPGAs.

As the fabs gain design talent, they will start producing their own competitive products, and slowly raise prices on fab services till fabless companies are required to resell those goods rather than market their own. We've seen this cycle over and over including with radios and TV's. First the base components, then tuners, chasis, and tubes, then finished goods cheaper than the sum of the parts.

It's with this perspective that domestic FPGA vendors could easily disappear off the map as quickly as GE, RCA, Magnavox, Packard Bell, Motorola, and other US TV and Radio suppliers did from 1965 to 1970 when domestic production pretty much stopped.

Xilinx doesn't control it's means of production, and with that, it also does not control it's fate. As FPGAs become a comodity building block for all electronics, as it seems it will during this decade, then every major fab on the planet will be producing them ... frequently with the fabs own design and logo. Since early US patents are set to expire this decade, that is almost a given. Those same fabs producing FPGAs are very likely to offer discounted ASIC facilities based on their netlists ... so I see the structured ASIC market as long term, at all levels.

Reply to
fpga_toys

I think FPGAs are a little insulated from the simpler boxes trends, as a substantial portion of the product, is actually software. IIRC, both Altera and Xilinx employ more Engineers on the SW side, than HW, and have done for a while. With Lattice now in the fray, with Fujitsu FAB'd devices, software is going to be the key differentiator. After all, in spite of the best spin efforts from all the marketing departments, the Silicon performances are actually quite similar - expected given they depend mostly on what Process the leading edge FABs can run. -jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

Jim,

I know about Menta and ST.

ST are countering IBMs 90nm ASIC offering which has been using a licensed 90nm FPGA core from us for over two years now.

ST just staying competitive, in my book.

Perhaps they saw an opportunity that having a small FPGA core would allow them to address? It appears that the use of the core is restricted to customizing a processor. Not enough details to really see what is being offered. For what, or why.

But, if there were any details, then the holders of significant FPGA patent portfolios would probably start to get interested....

At least if you bought the IBM solution you could develop and prototype your solution with Xilinx' proven tools, and be assured that the solution you were getting was from two of the world leaders in their respective fields, and that there would not be any patent disputes that might cause a disruption in supply.

The fact that ST dropped their GOSPL FPGA project and went with an (unknown) third party for their offering has puzzled a number of people.

We will see.

Austin

Reply to
Austin Lesea

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.