28nm Wafer & MPW Cost Explained: Constraints, Risk, and When It Makes Sense
28nm is a turning point in ASIC development. It is often described as a “mature advanced node,” but in practice it represents the last node where many non-hyperscale teams can realistically operate. Beyond 28nm, ASIC economics, risk, and organizational requirements change dramatically.
This article explains what drives 28nm wafer and MPW cost, and why decisions at this node must be made with exceptional clarity.
Why teams consider 28nm
28nm is typically chosen when designs require:
High logic density
Strong performance per watt
Advanced SoC-level integration
Long product lifetime and volume potential
Common applications include:
Networking and data-path ASICs
High-performance embedded SoCs
Multimedia, imaging, and acceleration devices
Infrastructure and automotive platforms
At this node, the motivation is rarely “cost reduction” — it is capability enablement.
What drives 28nm wafer cost
At 28nm, wafer cost is driven by advanced-node realities, not process age:
High mask count
Very tight design rules
Significant DFM and variability considerations
Yield sensitivity to layout quality
Expensive respins
While 28nm is still planar, it behaves economically like an advanced node. The cost of mistakes rises sharply.
28nm MPW: availability and intent
MPW exists at 28nm, but it is not a general-purpose prototyping platform.
Typical characteristics:
Very limited shuttle availability
Strict die size limits
Minimal process option flexibility
Strong emphasis on design readiness
28nm MPW is typically used for:
controlled first silicon
architecture confirmation
limited learning before committing to production
It is not suitable for exploratory or unstable designs.
MPW vs full mask at 28nm
MPW can make sense at 28nm when:
This is first silicon
The design is already highly stable
One learning cycle is sufficient
Volume projections are still uncertain
Full mask is often the better choice when:
Design verification is complete
Volume expectations justify NRE
Schedule predictability is critical
Backend planning is mature
At 28nm, many teams move directly to full mask once feasibility is confirmed.
Backend, yield, and test dominate total cost
At 28nm, backend considerations often outweigh wafer cost:
Advanced packaging
High pin counts
Complex test strategies
Yield learning that favors production-like conditions
At this node, focusing on wafer price alone is misleading.
Schedule risk becomes strategic
MPW schedules at 28nm are:
infrequent
inflexible
tightly controlled
Missing a window can add months to a project timeline, which may outweigh any MPW cost advantage.
For time-critical products, MPW must be evaluated as a risk-management tool, not a cost-saving one.
Evaluate MPW vs full mask for 28nm
At 28nm, the question is not “Can we afford MPW?”
It is “Is MPW the right strategic step for this program?”
You can evaluate this based on:
design maturity
volume expectations
schedule pressure
organizational readiness
👉 Use the MPW vs Full Mask decision tool
Answer a few high-impact questions and get a clear recommendation + next step.
—
—
Confidence
—
Recommended next step
—
Final takeaway
28nm is the last practical node for many ASIC teams before economics and risk fundamentally change.
MPW is still possible — but only when:
design risk is already low
backend planning is advanced
schedules are realistic
At 28nm, ASIC decisions must be driven by strategy and discipline, not experimentation.