Configure or customize: a persistent issue for the IP industry
In a panel discussion hosted by IP Extreme Wednesday, an interesting question surfaced: is it better to adapt silicon intellectual property (IP) to you design by configuring it, or by paying the vendor to customize it? This is an old discussion, but both financial realities and growing design complexity insure that it will continue.
The arguments in favor of configurable IP are both convincing and mostly economic. The big beneficiary is the IP developer who, with very little pricing leverage, has to get as many design wins out of each IP core development as possible. So instead of developing a family of USB 3.0 cores, for example, most IP vendors develop what is in essence a compiler to generate USB 3.0 controllers, hoping to cover any plausible configuration requirements.
Related Semiconductor IP
- AES GCM IP Core
- High Speed Ethernet Quad 10G to 100G PCS
- High Speed Ethernet Gen-2 Quad 100G PCS IP
- High Speed Ethernet 4/2/1-Lane 100G PCS
- High Speed Ethernet 2/4/8-Lane 200G/400G PCS
Related Blogs
- What is the difference between processor configuration and customization?
- The future of tooling from IP configuration to SoC verification
- Accelerating Edge Computing with Arm Ethos-N78 and Artisan Physical IP on GLOBALFOUNDRIES' 12LP+ Specialty Solution
- Get to Market Faster Using Arm Comprehensive Physical and POP IP Platform on Samsung Foundry 5nm Technology
Latest Blogs
- Why Choose Hard IP for Embedded FPGA in Aerospace and Defense Applications
- Migrating the CPU IP Development from MIPS to RISC-V Instruction Set Architecture
- Quintauris: Accelerating RISC-V Innovation for next-gen Hardware
- Say Goodbye to Limits and Hello to Freedom of Scalability in the MIPS P8700
- Why is Hard IP a Better Solution for Embedded FPGA (eFPGA) Technology?