Most teams discover their BOM problem too late.
At first, BOM cost is acceptable. Volumes are low, margins are flexible, and speed matters more than optimization. Over time, however, BOM cost stops being a technical detail and becomes a business constraint.
Prices can’t come down. Margins compress. Procurement starts asking hard questions. Engineering is asked to “optimize” without a clear path forward.
For many products, the underlying issue is simple: the platform was chosen for flexibility, not cost efficiency.
This article explains six practical ways ASIC integration reduces BOM cost and why BOM pressure is often one of the strongest signals that FPGA has reached its limits.
FPGA-based systems tend to accumulate components.
External memories, power management ICs, glue logic, clock generators, level shifters, and interface transceivers quietly add up over time. Each part adds cost, sourcing risk, and assembly complexity.
ASIC integration allows many of these functions to move on-die.
Reducing component count lowers BOM cost directly and improves yield indirectly by simplifying assembly.
Board cost is often treated as fixed, but it rarely is.
High component density, complex routing, and tight constraints increase PCB layer count and manufacturing difficulty. FPGA designs often push boards into more layers than strictly necessary.
ASIC integration reduces routing complexity and pin count, which often enables:
These savings repeat on every unit shipped.
Power is not just an electrical parameter. It is a system cost driver.
Higher power consumption forces:
ASIC’s power efficiency reduces these system-level costs, even when the ASIC itself is more expensive than an FPGA device.
These savings rarely appear in early BOM comparisons, but they become significant at scale.
Every component is a yield risk.
More placements mean more opportunities for solder defects, alignment issues, and rework. Yield losses are often hidden in manufacturing reports, but they directly affect cost.
ASIC integration improves yield by:
Yield improvements translate directly into lower effective BOM cost.
FPGA pricing often behaves unpredictably at scale.
Market demand, supply constraints, and lifecycle changes can introduce sudden price increases or availability issues. For products with long lifetimes, this unpredictability becomes a strategic risk.
ASIC cost, once established, is far more predictable:
Predictability itself has value, especially for procurement and finance teams.
ASIC is not a one-time optimization.
Once a product moves to custom silicon, future cost-downs become easier:
FPGA-based systems have limited headroom for structural cost reduction. ASIC opens a long-term optimization path.
BOM pressure usually appears after a product proves market fit.
That timing is not accidental. It coincides with:
At this stage, continuing with FPGA is not a neutral decision. It is a decision to accept recurring cost penalties.
ASIC does not automatically solve BOM problems, but it enables structural cost reduction that FPGA cannot.
The most common mistake is treating BOM pressure as a procurement problem.
Negotiating prices, switching suppliers, or shaving features may provide temporary relief, but they rarely address the root cause.
When BOM cost is fundamentally driven by platform choice, structural change is required.
If BOM cost is limiting pricing, margins, or competitiveness, the next step is not another optimization cycle. It is a directional decision.
Does ASIC make sense for this product now, later, or not at all?
Answering that question early prevents years of incremental cost struggle.
Run the 2-minute ASIC or Not? Decision Wizard to get a clear, non-sales recommendation based on BOM pressure, volume, and readiness.
👉 /asic-or-not
