Altera vs Xilinx vs Lattice, Cost effectiveness comparison

When comparing Altera (now part of Intel), Xilinx, and Lattice in terms of cost-effectiveness, several factors need to be considered. These include performance, product offerings, target applications, and the total cost of ownership (TCO), including development and manufacturing costs.

1. Altera (Intel) FPGAs

• Price Range: Altera’s FPGA offerings generally cover a wide price range. Their low-cost FPGAs (like Cyclone and MAX series) are considered highly competitive in terms of pricing, especially for less demanding applications.

• Target Applications: Typically used in high-performance computing, automotive, communications, and industrial sectors.

• Cost-Effectiveness:

  • Altera's Cyclone and MAX series are very cost-effective for mid-range applications.

  • However, their higher-end devices (Stratix and Arria series) tend to be more expensive than similar offerings from Xilinx and Lattice due to their performance and advanced features.

• Development Costs: Intel’s software tools (Quartus) are free to use, though the learning curve can be steep. However, for high-end devices, development costs can be high due to the complexity and the need for specialized tools.

2. Xilinx FPGAs

• Price Range: Xilinx has a broad portfolio, ranging from low-cost FPGAs (Spartan and Artix series) to high-performance models (Virtex and Kintex series).

• Target Applications: Xilinx FPGAs are widely used in telecommunications, aerospace, automotive, data centers, and high-performance computing.

• Cost-Effectiveness:

  • Xilinx's Artix and Spartan series offer good price/performance ratios for applications that need moderate to high performance without requiring the extreme capabilities of Virtex or Kintex series.

  • The cost of higher-end devices can be steep, though Xilinx tends to offer more versatile, high-performance options, making them suitable for a broader range of demanding applications.

• Development Costs: Xilinx offers free versions of Vivado for smaller designs, but for larger projects, the cost of Vivado Design Suite (for high-level synthesis and simulation) may add up.

3. Lattice FPGAs

• Price Range: Lattice’s FPGAs, particularly the iCE40 and MachXO series, are typically positioned as the most cost-effective option, especially for low-power and low-cost applications.

• Target Applications: Lattice targets industries like consumer electronics, automotive, industrial control, and IoT, where lower power consumption and small form factors are crucial.

• Cost-Effectiveness:

  • Lattice FPGAs are among the cheapest options available, with a very competitive price point, especially for designs requiring moderate logic and low power consumption.

  • They tend to have less performance compared to Altera and Xilinx but are highly cost-effective for applications that do not require the raw power of more expensive devices.

• Development Costs: Lattice’s software tools (Diamond and Radiant) are generally less expensive and offer free versions, making them very attractive for small companies or low-budget projects.

Summary Comparison:

Conclusion:

• Lattice is generally the most cost-effective option for low-cost, low-power applications, especially for simpler designs or those with small-scale logic requirements.

• Altera and Xilinx offer higher performance but at a higher price. They are more suitable for applications where performance and flexibility are more important than raw cost.

• Altera tends to have a better price/performance ratio in mid-range models compared to Xilinx, but Xilinx offers more versatility in high-end models.

If your project is based on budget and does not require the most advanced performance, Lattice is the go-to option. For mid-range to high-performance designs, Altera and Xilinx are better choices, with Altera generally being more cost-effective for certain applications.