At 10:13 AM 9/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:


>         The fact of the matter is that, for similar functionality, an
> FPGA (or
>other "reconfigurable" logic) is more expensive then dedicated silicon. For
>a one off or low volume product this is a none issue. For a product where
>every cent counts, and volume is king, this is a BIG difference. TTYL

At some point, one might think, the cost will no longer be so important.
For example, where we now might use a PIC12C508A instead of an LM556 we are
substituting a much more complex (thousands of transistors) programmable
part for a very simple (scores of transistors) non-reconfigurable part.
Because we can eliminate a tiny bit (relative to what's inside the PIC) of
external complexity and perhaps add some features, the difference is worth it.

I don't think that time is very near, though. Maybe 10 years from now for
8/16 bit cores in more mundane applications. And because tools are a very
important part of the equation, it's possible designers will just be using
a soft-PIC (or AVR/8051/680x/6502) core.

I don't think "paying for the IP" is a long-term issue. If it will sell
more silicon, they'll make it available for free, and if not the Richard
Stallmans of the world will. There are already free synthesizable cores
available. Check out:

http://www.opencores.org/
www.free-ip.com/

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.