for all those who believe in ASICs....

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2VY5CYWYDOXWUQSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=181501385

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

Austin

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
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2VY5CYWYDOXWUQSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=181501385
>
> Well, I guess that about wraps it up for the attempt to disguise ASIC 
> design as something different...

Austin Lesea wrote:
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2VY5CYWYDOXWUQSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=181501385
>
> Well, I guess that about wraps it up for the attempt to disguise ASIC
> design as something different...

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.

toys,

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

Austin

fpga_toys@yahoo.com wrote:

> Austin Lesea wrote:
> 
>>http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2VY5CYWYDOXWUQSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=181501385
>>
>>Well, I guess that about wraps it up for the attempt to disguise ASIC
>>design as something different...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

austin wrote:
> toys,
>
> That was the link to LSI logic dropping their structured ASIC business.

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.

austin wrote:
> 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

Austin Lesea wrote:
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2VY5CYWYDOXWUQSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=181501385
>
> Well, I guess that about wraps it up for the attempt to disguise ASIC
> design as something different...

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:


http://www.eetimes.com/conf/dac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164302400

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.

fpga_toys@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

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.

Peter Alfke wrote:
> fpga_toys@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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?

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

fpga_toys@yahoo.com wrote:
> Peter Alfke wrote:
> > Mr Anonymous, who hides his name, but doesn't want to be called "toys":

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

hmm ... I got that slightly wrong ... the other readers humor was:

<fpga_toys@yahoo.com> wrote:
>austin wrote:
> > toys,

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