One of the most frustrating moments in an ASIC project is asking for quotes and receiving answers that feel unusable.
Wide cost ranges. Long timelines. Follow-up questions that seem endless. From the outside, it can feel like vendors are being evasive. From the vendor side, the problem is usually
Most ASIC projects do not fail because the idea was bad.
They fail because risk was misunderstood, hidden, or postponed. By the time problems become visible, the project is already expensive, politically difficult to stop, and painful to fix.
The uncomfortable truth is that most ASIC failures are
Choosing an ASIC node is one of the easiest ways to add cost and risk without realizing it.
Many teams assume that the most advanced node automatically delivers the best product. In practice, experienced teams do the opposite: they choose the least aggressive node that still meets the product
Many first-time ASIC conversations fail before they begin.
Not because the idea is wrong, but because expectations are misaligned. Teams approach vendors too early with vague goals, or too late after internal assumptions have already hardened into unrealistic plans.
The result is frustration on both sides: slow quotes,
The question most teams ask is simple:
“At what volume does ASIC become cheaper than FPGA?”
The problem is that the question is usually asked too late, and answered too simplistically. There is no single magic number where ASIC suddenly becomes the obvious choice. The real break-even point
Most ASIC schedules fail quietly.
Not because of one catastrophic mistake, but because they were planned as if silicon behaved like software: linear progress, easy reversals, and unlimited iteration. In reality, ASIC development is constrained by physics, manufacturing, and verification effort. Late changes are expensive, and uncertainty compounds quickly.
Read More