How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbitPublicado a 2026-06-15Actualizado a 2026-06-15

Resumen

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and hi...

Hello everyone, I'm Shi Kan from the Institute of Computing Technology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a 'slash technology worker'. I have over a decade of experience in the chip industry, and currently, I conduct academic research related to chips at the Chinese Academy of Sciences; at the same time, I am also a science and technology Bilibili UP host 'Lao Shi Tan Xin', and my viewers call me 'Lao Shi'.

Chips: The Cornerstone of Modern Society

When it comes to chips, everyone surely knows their importance.

Whether it's the currently hot artificial intelligence, life sciences and medicine, autonomous driving, network communications, and so on, almost all the technologies of modern society you can imagine are inseparable from chips—this foundational technology of the information age.

I have been involved in chip work for a long time, and the chip development process is actually a very interesting one, mainly due to two aspects.

Firstly, the applications of chips are extremely wide-ranging. Once you enter this industry, you probably don't have to worry about unemployment because many industries require chip technology.

The second reason might be more important: chip development is a very difficult endeavor. As chip engineers, we need to constantly learn and enrich ourselves to face and embrace this era full of opportunities and challenges.

So the question arises: what exactly makes chip technology so difficult?

Why Are Chips So Difficult?

Completed: 10%//////////

Everyone might know that the manufacturing process of a chip is essentially an evolution journey of a grain of sand. Sand might be something inexhaustible and abundant on this planet; but turning low-value sand into high-value chips adds up to nothing but human intelligence.

Starting from sand, we need to purify it to obtain wafers. Then, through a series of steps such as photolithography, ion implantation, etching, packaging, and so on, the abundant, inexhaustible sand is transformed into the final tiny chip.

So, having said all that, with so many steps, chip manufacturing is actually only part of the entire chip development process; it does not equal chip development itself.

There is another crucial step, which is chip design. It refers to completing the circuit design according to requirements and making the circuit function properly. Then, we hand over the designed circuit to chip manufacturers for the later stages of manufacturing, ultimately obtaining the physical chip.

But there is another question here: how do you ensure that the chip's functionality matches your initial design?

There is an interesting little story here. In 1947, a very famous female programmer named Grace Hopper found her computer wasn't working. After careful investigation and exploration, she discovered that a moth had flown into a relay of the computer. So, she carefully used tweezers to remove this moth and taped it onto a piece of paper.

This might be the first 'bug' discovered in the entire history of computer development, meaning a vulnerability.

If the previous example seems too distant, we actually have more examples. Here's a math problem for everyone: What is the final result of this expression? Actually, this problem is simple because the numerator and denominator in the later part are the same and can cancel out; then the numbers before and after the minus sign are also the same, so subtracting the same number should result in 0. However, in actual computers and chips, the result might not be this.

For example, in an Intel Pentium chip, the result was 255.00000000. What happened? It turned out that when an American scientist was conducting scientific research, he kept getting incorrect calculations when running this expression. Finally, he discovered that there was an undetected design flaw in a floating-point division unit of this chip.

Don't underestimate this design flaw; its consequences were actually very serious. In the 1990s, Intel spent $475 million to recall all problematic Pentium chips worldwide.

So, returning to the earlier question: what exactly makes chip technology so difficult?

In my view, the difficulty of chips lies in the need to succeed on the first try. Making chips is not like software, where you can patch and fix various problems later. In contrast, once a chip completes the evolution journey from sand to chip, you may have already spent tens of thousands, millions, or even hundreds of millions to complete the tape-out and manufacturing, making it very difficult to modify afterwards.

Then, the next question is: how many chip projects today can achieve success on the first try?

The 'Bottleneck' of Chip Verification

Completed: 40%//////////

According to survey data, only 24% of chip projects can achieve success on the first try. That is to say, 3/4 of chip projects, due to various major and minor undetected design flaws, require at least one more tape-out, which consumes a lot of time and money.

Therefore, the key question is: how can we ensure, as much as possible, that chips have as few or no bugs/design flaws as possible before tape-out and manufacturing? This is the direction I have been dedicated to researching over the past few years.

Also according to this research data, throughout the entire chip development process, especially with the current development of AI and various high-tech fields, chips are becoming increasingly complex. As a result, chip verification has become a very high proportion of the entire chip development cycle, even exceeding half, reaching 70% of the entire chip design cycle.

But unfortunately, chip verification is also a difficult task. I list some astronomical numbers here, such as the Earth's circumference, the possible number of stars in the Milky Way, or the length of a light-year.

In chip verification, there is also an astronomical number, which is the number of cycles needed to fully verify a CPU core. What exactly does this astronomical number represent?

If we use the most advanced software simulation technology available today to fully verify a CPU core, it would take at least 15,000 years. Using the most advanced hardware emulation technology can slightly reduce this time to 30 years. But we all know that developing a chip cannot wait 15,000 years, nor can it wait 30 years.

So, what is the essence of the problem? We have actually been researching this over the past few years. We found that in chip verification, there exists a so-called 'impossible triangle', namely the high performance of chip verification, good debugging capability, and low cost; these three factors crucial to chip verification cannot be satisfied simultaneously. For current mainstream research or methods, at most, two out of the three can be achieved, and this is the fundamental reason for the low efficiency of chip verification.

Someone Must Do Something Different

Completed: 60%//////////

Due to these reasons, chip verification has not seen significant development over the past period.

In chip companies, chip engineers may spend more time writing test cases and running regression verification. Essentially, it's dirty and tiring work. The same goes for academia; very few scholars are devoted to chip verification research, especially compared to current hot fields like artificial intelligence, research related to chip verification is very scarce.

So, an academic leader once told me that in the same amount of time, they could publish three or even more papers in the field of artificial intelligence, but in chip verification, they might not even publish one.

Unfortunately, what they said is true.

However, someone must do something different.

Therefore, over the past few years, I have led a team in conducting research related to chip verification and have built an agile verification research system from scratch. The core of this research system is a verification platform called ENCORE, which is based on a special chip—the Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). ENCORE can significantly improve verification efficiency while achieving good verification debuggability.

To build this agile verification research system, on one hand, we need to continuously optimize the efficiency of vulnerability mining, debugging, and repair at the algorithmic level; on the other hand, we also hope to build an end-to-end agile verification acceleration platform based on programmable logic chips (FPGAs). At the application level, we hope this platform can be suitable for both general-purpose processor verification, such as CPUs or GPUs, and specialized chip verification, such as the currently very popular AI accelerators.

Over the past period, we have done a lot of cutting-edge exploratory work in this field, including the aforementioned ENCORE and many new research projects. We have also published these research results at many internationally renowned academic conferences.

We are actually working on some interesting projects afterwards, but since these works have not been published yet, I won't show them to you one by one for now.

Letting More People Understand Chips

Completed: 80%//////////

However, during the research process, I gradually realized that these scientific or academic achievements are mainly for people within our small circle who only understand chip verification and related fields. So, how can we let more people see our work, understand our research, and even participate in our endeavors?

Naturally, I thought of chip science popularization, which also feels very interesting to me. I have been engaged in science popularization for four or five years, starting from text initially to later making videos on Bilibili. Chip science popularization has not only brought me many gains but also helped me meet many like-minded friends, as well as viewers who like and support me.

However, making chip science popularization videos is not a simple task, especially in today's era of short video proliferation. A fellow science popularization blogger and leader told me that in the same amount of time it takes me to produce one long, hardcore chip science popularization video, they could make 10 or even more short videos related to hot topics, and the traffic could be many times greater than mine.

Unfortunately, what they said is also true.

But based on this, I think there still needs to be people who persist in doing difficult things. I hope to combine chip science popularization and chip verification—two equally difficult but equally interesting things—and use video and text formats to show everyone what we have done, the papers we have published, and the open-source chip projects our entire large team is researching.

Besides chips, I will also share hardcore technologies like artificial intelligence and computers with everyone, as well as share my growth experiences, the books I have read, and the knowledge I have acquired. I know that I am not a genius myself, nor am I a so-called all-around expert or guru. I would rather be a 'guide' for everyone, sharing the path I have walked.

So, returning to the question I wanted to share with everyone today: chip research and chip science popularization, which one is more interesting? Of course, for me, both are equally interesting. The reason is simple: because they are equally difficult. At the same time, they both require me to persist very long-term and enduringly.

Many people say we need to do difficult and right things. But the problem actually is: how do you judge if something is right before you do it? If something is seen as sitting on a cold bench in others' eyes, or seen as doing dirty, tiring work, would you still persist in doing it?

Therefore, I prefer to do difficult and long-term things, such as academic research in chip verification, or making long hardcore chip science popularization videos. Because if something is difficult and requires long-term persistence, then it is probably right.

That's all I wanted to share with you today. I am Lao Shi, thank you, everyone!

This article comes from the WeChat public account: Gezhi Lundaotan , Author: Shi Kan, Original Title: 'How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars | Shi Kan'

Criptos en tendencia

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat was the main point of the story about the Intel Pentium chip flaw mentioned in the article?

AThe story illustrated a critical design bug in the Pentium chip's floating-point division unit. A calculation that should have resulted in '0' instead produced '255.00000000'. This seemingly minor error forced Intel to spend $475 million on a global recall of the faulty chips in the 1990s, highlighting the high cost of failure in chip development.

QAccording to the article, why is chip development so difficult, especially compared to software development?

AChip development is exceptionally difficult because it requires 'first-time success'. Unlike software, which can be patched and updated after release, a physical chip cannot be easily modified once manufactured (or 'taped out'). The entire expensive process, from sand to finished silicon, costing potentially hundreds of millions, must be redone to fix design flaws.

QWhat percentage of chip projects achieve first-time success according to the survey data cited by the author?

AAccording to the survey data presented by the author, only 24% of chip projects achieve first-time success. This means approximately three-quarters (76%) of projects require at least one re-spin or re-fabrication due to various undetected design bugs, leading to significant extra time and cost.

QWhat is the 'impossible triangle' in chip verification, as explained in the article?

AIn chip verification, the 'impossible triangle' refers to the three crucial factors—high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. The article states that these three factors cannot be satisfied simultaneously with current mainstream methods. Engineers and researchers can only achieve a maximum of two out of these three, which fundamentally limits verification efficiency.

QWhat are the two 'hard but long-term' pursuits that the author, Shi Kan ('Lao Shi'), is committed to?

AThe author is committed to two challenging, long-term endeavors. First, he leads academic research in chip verification, specifically developing an agile verification framework called ENCORE based on FPGAs. Second, he creates hardcore, long-form chip and technology popular science content (like his Bilibili channel videos), aiming to make complex topics accessible to a wider audience beyond academic circles.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Gate Research Institute: Analysis of Chart Patterns and Breakout Trading Strategies

Gate Research Institute: Chart Pattern Analysis and Breakout Trading Strategies Chart patterns are crucial tools in technical analysis for observing market supply and demand shifts, trend continuations, and reversals. This analysis involves a comprehensive evaluation of trend, volume, support/resistance, time cycles, and breakout validity, not just rote pattern recognition. Patterns are broadly categorized into reversal patterns (e.g., Double Tops/Bottoms, Head and Shoulders) and continuation patterns (e.g., Flags, Triangles, Rectangles). An effective breakout, key for trading, requires clear support/resistance, prolonged consolidation, a prevailing trend backdrop, and volume confirmation. However, breakouts are not guaranteed, as false breakouts are common. Risk must be managed through position sizing, stop-loss orders, pullback confirmations, and profit-taking in stages. Key pattern types discussed include: * **Rectangle Patterns:** Indicate market indecision within parallel support and resistance, with breakouts projecting a move equal to the pattern's width. * **Flag & Pennant Patterns:** Short-term continuation patterns following sharp price moves ("flagpoles"). * **Triangle Patterns:** Symmetrical, Ascending (bullish bias), and Descending (bearish bias) triangles, representing consolidation before a directional move. * **Head and Shoulders Patterns:** Major reversal patterns signaling trend exhaustion. The article details breakout trading strategies, defining valid breakouts by price closing beyond a key level with increased volume and minimal immediate re-entry into the prior range. It contrasts range trading with breakout trading and outlines entry methods (immediate entry, pullback entry, scaling in), stop-loss placement (based on pattern failure), and profit-taking techniques (target-based, structure-based, trend-following). It further classifies breakout outcomes: 1. **Valid Breakouts:** Strong, sustained moves in the breakout direction. 2. **Pullback Breakouts:** Price breaks out, retests the breakout level as support/resistance, then resumes the trend—offering a lower-risk entry. 3. **False Breakouts:** Price briefly breaches a level but quickly reverses back into the prior range, a common risk managed by strict stop-losses. Key validation tools for breakouts include volume analysis, the principle of support/resistance role reversal, and momentum indicators like ATR, Moving Averages, Bollinger Bands, and RSI. In conclusion, while chart patterns and breakout analysis provide a structured framework, their effectiveness relies on multiple confirming factors—trend context, volume, and proper risk management. They should be integrated into a broader trading system rather than used as standalone signals.

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

Gate Research Institute: Analysis of Chart Patterns and Breakout Trading Strategies

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

Joseph Chalom: Ethereum is Becoming the "Settlement Layer of Trust" for Global Finance

In a speech titled "The Industrialization of Trust," Sharplink CEO Joseph Chalom (former BlackRock digital assets head) discussed the future transformation of global finance. Drawing from 20 years at BlackRock, where he led the launch of Bitcoin/ETH ETFs and tokenized funds, Chalom highlighted the immense hidden costs of establishing trust in traditional finance—estimated at over $9.3 trillion annually in the US alone due to fragmented systems, multi-day settlements, and countless reconciliations. He argued that Ethereum is emerging as the global financial "settlement layer for trust," with its robust, decentralized infrastructure securing over $300 billion in on-chain assets and most stablecoins and tokenized assets. The future, he stated, will be driven by three accelerating pillars: stablecoins (evolving beyond crypto gateways to become efficient cross-border payment rails), tokenized assets (enabling 24/7 trading and reshaping capital markets), and DeFi (providing automated, accessible financial services). A potential game-changer, Chalom added, is the fourth pillar: "Agentic Finance," where AI agents autonomously execute programmable financial transactions via smart contracts and stablecoins. He envisions individuals soon having AI-powered "CFOs in their pockets" to optimize idle capital and manage tokenized portfolios. This shift, facilitated by Ethereum's trustless settlement, could multiply on-chain transaction volume 1000x within a year, moving finance toward a seamless, digitized future.

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

Joseph Chalom: Ethereum is Becoming the "Settlement Layer of Trust" for Global Finance

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

STRC Severely Unpegged, What Risks Is the Market Pricing In?

The article analyzes the recent significant de-pegging of Strategy's perpetual preferred stock, STRC, whose price fell to approximately $89, far below its $100 face value. This discount has pushed its simple yield to around 12.9%, creating a paradox. The stock was designed as a high-yield instrument trading near par, and Strategy maintains an 11.5% annual dividend, even recently switching to semi-monthly payments to support the price. The author explores several reasons why the high yield hasn't attracted enough buying pressure to restore the par value. A key factor is potential reverse deleveraging from carry trades, where leveraged investors may be forced to sell due to margin calls as the price falls, creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Additionally, the tokenization and integration of STRC into DeFi protocols (like Apyx, Saturn, Pendle) have introduced faster, more transparent, and potentially more volatile price adjustment mechanisms through leverage and yield-splitting products. The emergence of a competing product, Strive's SATA, offering a 13% yield with daily dividends, has also changed the yield benchmark, challenging STRC's unique high-yield narrative. Furthermore, the market is questioning the distinction between Strategy's substantial Bitcoin reserves, which provide long-term balance sheet coverage, and the certainty of stable near-term cash flow for dividends. Ultimately, the price dip represents a stress test for this type of BTC-backed, high-yield financing tool. The future path of STRC depends on whether Strategy acts to reinforce the $100 peg (e.g., by adjusting dividends), whether DeFi-related leverage unwinds further, and how investors ultimately price the risks of leverage, competition, and cash flow uncertainty against the offered yield.

marsbitHace 23 min(s)

STRC Severely Unpegged, What Risks Is the Market Pricing In?

marsbitHace 23 min(s)

LIT Token Hits Six-Month High: How Long Can the Buyback Flywheel Keep Burning Fuel?

The LIT token of decentralized perpetual exchange Lighter surged to a six-month high above $1.90 on June 18th, with a market cap of $425 million. After a price correction earlier this year, the recent rebound is attributed to its core "buyback flywheel" mechanism. All protocol fee revenue is used for programmatic, hourly market buybacks of LIT. Since its TGE in December 2025, approximately 15 million LIT (6% of circulating supply) has been repurchased for around $21 million. Additional price support comes from the LLP (Lighter Liquidity Pool), where providers must stake LIT worth 10% of their deposited USDC, locking significant token supply. However, challenges persist. Trading volume has declined amidst a sluggish market, with total volume at $1.68 trillion, significantly lower than leading competitor Hyperliquid's $4.37 trillion. While Lighter focuses on perpetual contracts, RWA, and Pre-IPO markets, Hyperliquid has expanded into prediction markets and boasts a U.S. spot ETF, attracting institutional investment and influencer endorsements like from Arthur Hayes. In contrast, LIT currently lacks similar high-profile backing. With 75% of LIT's total 1 billion supply still locked (team and investor tokens begin a 3-year linear unlock in December 2026), there is no immediate unlock selling pressure. The token's future performance hinges on sustaining trading volume growth, successful product iteration, and executing its transparent buyback strategy against a dominant competitor.

Foresight NewsHace 43 min(s)

LIT Token Hits Six-Month High: How Long Can the Buyback Flywheel Keep Burning Fuel?

Foresight NewsHace 43 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar CHIP

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar USD.AI (CHIP) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar USD.AI (CHIP) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu USD.AI (CHIP)Después de comprar tu USD.AI (CHIP), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear USD.AI (CHIP)Tradear fácilmente con USD.AI (CHIP) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

410 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2026.04.21Actualizado en 2026.06.02

Cómo comprar CHIP

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de CHIP (CHIP).

活动图片