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

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-06-15Обновлено 2026-06-15

Введение

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'

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

Xpeng and NIO Compete on Computing Power, Li Auto Shifts Architecture

On June 15, 2026, Li Auto unveiled details of its self-developed chip, Mahe M100, for its new L9 Livis model. CTO Xie Yan stated the goal was not just a faster chip, but a fundamentally different one, targeting the chip architecture itself. While competitors like NIO, Xpeng, and Huawei highlight TOPS (computing power) figures for their self-developed chips, Li Auto’s Mahe M100 focuses on redesigning the underlying architecture. It employs a "dynamic data flow architecture" to address memory bandwidth bottlenecks in large model inference, claiming up to 3x the effective computing power of Nvidia's Thor U for its specific workloads and a 40% reduction in latency. The chip's design was peer-reviewed and accepted at ISCA 2026. However, this performance is highly optimized for Li Auto's own VLA2.1 algorithm, meaning it may not generalize as well to other tasks. Li Auto aims to achieve full-stack in-house development with Mahe M100, covering chip, compiler, OS, AI algorithms, and domain controller—a level of vertical integration few competitors match. Beyond the chip, CEO Li Xiang introduced a new strategic narrative: the "embodied intelligent vehicle," defined as an integration of an EV, a professional driver, an AI computer, and a life assistant. This shifts competition from features like large screens to systemic AI capabilities. A key commitment was that Li Auto's Mahe VLA autonomous driving model will match Tesla's FSD V14 by Q4 2026, with specific OTA milestones set for July, September, and December. Financially, Li Auto faces pressure with declining revenue and vehicle gross margins since Q4 2025, while maintaining high R&D investment (approx. ¥12B in 2026, 50% AI-related). Its 2026 sales target is 550,000 vehicles, up from 406,000 in 2025. The new L9 Livis garnered over 10,000 pre-orders in two weeks. The effectiveness of these strategic moves—new products, OTAs, and the novel chip architecture—will begin to show in Q3 2026 financial results, with the year-end FSD V14 benchmark being the ultimate test.

marsbit54 мин. назад

Xpeng and NIO Compete on Computing Power, Li Auto Shifts Architecture

marsbit54 мин. назад

The Year of AI Applications: Saying 'Yes' While Ignoring Risks? A Comprehensive Open Source Log of Software Development's Journey

The Year of AI Applications: Blindly Saying "Yes" While Ignoring Risks? A Software Development Log Goes Fully Open Source. AI-generated code harbors risks hidden within seemingly correct programs, potentially leading to data leaks or asset loss. The open-source project "Narwhal AI Code Risks," from Peking University's Narwhal-Lab, compiles real-world cases, early warning signs, and typical risk pathways. Its goal is to help developers identify potential hazards early and avoid repeating past mistakes. In 2026, code is generated faster than ever but deployed with less scrutiny. The danger often lies not in glaring errors, but in code that appears normal—syntactically correct, passing all checks—yet introduces subtle but critical flaws like non-existent dependencies, excessive permissions, or exposed databases. A stark example is the Moonwell cbETH oracle incident. A configuration file error, where a cryptocurrency price was set to ~$1.12 instead of ~$2,200, slipped through 28 checks and a pull request signed by both AI (Claude, Copilot) and human developers. This "semantic deviation" resulted in a loss of $1.78 million. The risk is that AI can produce functionally valid code that is semantically wrong for the business context. As AI moves beyond simple code completion to modifying configurations, installing dependencies, and operating via autonomous agents, it traverses longer, less traceable paths within software engineering, blurring traditional boundaries and oversight points. The Narwhal AI Code Risks project structures information into three layers: `/cases` for documented real-world incidents, `/inferred` for early warning signals, and `/scenarios` for clear, generalized risk patterns not yet tied to specific events. This aims to create a lasting, public record to prevent collective amnesia about past AI-coding pitfalls. Risks are categorized into seven areas: Software Supply Chain (e.g., recommending fake packages), Code-Level Vulnerabilities (e.g., reintroducing path traversal bugs), Cloud & Infrastructure Misconfiguration (e.g., overly permissive settings), Agent Risks (from autonomous tool execution), Vertical Domain Risks (e.g., in finance, healthcare), Intellectual Property & Compliance issues, and Human Factors (like over-reliance on AI output). The project's core value is transforming isolated incidents into reusable knowledge—a foundational resource for developers to spot similar issues, for security researchers to build upon, for toolmakers to create detection rules, and for the community to contribute new findings. As AI integration accelerates, this open-source "logbook" serves as a crucial navigational aid, charting past errors to help future projects steer clear of the same traps.

marsbit54 мин. назад

The Year of AI Applications: Saying 'Yes' While Ignoring Risks? A Comprehensive Open Source Log of Software Development's Journey

marsbit54 мин. назад

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

SpaceX's trillion-dollar valuation is built on its three core businesses: Starlink (profitable, 60% of revenue), rockets (driving down launch costs), and AI (a major investment area). This creates a financial cycle: Starlink funds rocket development, which enables low-cost launches for AI hardware, generating future revenue. This cycle fuels annual capital expenditures of tens of billions, flowing to a vast supply chain. Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like NVIDIA (GPU/CUDA ecosystem), Eutelsat (critical radio spectrum), Filtronic (specialized amplifiers), Materion (strategic beryllium), and STMicroelectronics (antenna chips). The second group consists of hard-to-replace suppliers due to high switching costs, such as Honeywell (flight control), Carpenter Technology (specialty alloys), Hexcel (carbon fiber), Broadcom (data exchange), and Linde (industrial gases). The third group comprises high-volume, cost-critical suppliers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Key names include Wistron NeWeb (primary manufacturer) and several A-share companies like Shenzhen Sunway (connectors), Pies New Materials (forgings), Western Superconducting (alloys), and Yingliu (castings). Other niche players include Trimble (timing), Astronics (power distribution), and CTS (thermal management). The article argues that investing in these suppliers, rather than SpaceX stock directly, offers an alternative opportunity. The rationale is threefold: procurement is just beginning to scale, SpaceX's IPO brings new transparency to its supply chain, and the situation mirrors early stages of past "super terminal" ecosystems like Apple or Tesla. While risks exist (commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, technology shifts), the core thesis is that SpaceX's massive, ongoing procurement will translate into reliable revenue for its key suppliers, regardless of its own stock price volatility.

marsbit1 ч. назад

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

marsbit1 ч. назад

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

**Title: The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who Benefits from Musk's Annual $100 Billion Capital Expenditure?** This article argues that investors seeking to benefit from SpaceX's growth might find greater opportunities in its supply chain rather than directly investing in the company itself, drawing parallels to historical successes with Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA suppliers. **SpaceX's Business Model & Cash Flow:** SpaceX generates revenue from three main areas: 1. **Starlink:** Its profitable core, earning $11.3B in 2023 (60% of revenue), funding other ventures. 2. **Rockets (Falcon/Starship):** Requires $3B+ in annual R&D but achieves the world's lowest launch costs. 3. **AI:** Currently unprofitable (-$6B+ in 2023), investing heavily in ground-based supercomputers (220,000 GPUs) and future orbital data centers. The cycle is: Starlink profits → fund cheaper rockets → low-cost launches deploy AI hardware → AI compute rentals generate future revenue. This cycle drives annual procurement spending of tens of billions of dollars. **The Supply Chain Beneficiaries:** Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability: **1. Nearly Irreplaceable (High Barriers to Entry):** * **NVIDIA:** Powers the Colossus supercomputer; its CUDA ecosystem creates immense switching costs. * **Eutelsat (SATS):** Controls critical radio spectrum for satellite communications; holds a ~3% stake in SpaceX. * **Filtronic (FTC):** Supplies millimeter-wave signal amplifiers for Starlink satellites; SpaceX constitutes 83% of its revenue. * **Materion (MTRN):** Global leader in beryllium production, a strategic material used in Starship structures. * **STMicroelectronics (STM):** Supplies phased-array antenna chips for Starlink satellites. **2. Replaceable, but Switching Cost is Prohibitively High:** * **Honeywell (HON):** Provides flight control and inertial navigation systems with decades of certification. * **Carpenter Technology (CRS):** Manufactures ultra-pure specialty steel alloys for Raptor engines. * **Hexcel (HXL):** Supplies custom carbon fiber composites developed over a decade with SpaceX. * **Broadcom (AVGO):** Manages high-speed data switching. * **Linde Group:** Supplies industrial gases (liquid oxygen/nitrogen) from facilities built near SpaceX launch sites. **3. High-Volume, Cost-Critical Manufacturing:** Focuses on mass-producing components like Starlink user terminals (target: 30 million units). * **Key Players:** Wistron NeWeb (6285, primary terminal manufacturer), several Chinese A-share companies (e.g., Sunway Communication, PAX New Materials, Western Metal Materials, Yingliu Co.), and smaller US firms like Trimble (TRMB, timing systems). **Why Now?** Three factors make the supply chain opportunity timely: 1. **Volume Ramp-Up:** SpaceX plans 100 launches in 2026, aims for 30 million Starlink terminals, and will deploy AI data centers, meaning procurement will accelerate. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The IPO provides public financial data, allowing investors to track supplier order growth. 3. **Historical Precedent:** The current phase is likened to Tesla's early mass-production stage (circa 2018), suggesting a long growth runway for suppliers. **Conclusion:** The article posits that while investing in SpaceX stock is betting on Elon Musk's ambitious vision at a high valuation, investing in its established suppliers is a bet on the tangible, recurring revenue from its massive procurement budget, which is largely decoupled from day-to-day stock price volatility.

链捕手1 ч. назад

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

链捕手1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Как купить CHIP

Добро пожаловать на HTX.com! Мы сделали приобретение USD.AI (CHIP) простым и удобным. Следуйте нашему пошаговому руководству и отправляйтесь в свое крипто-путешествие.Шаг 1: Создайте аккаунт на HTXИспользуйте свой адрес электронной почты или номер телефона, чтобы зарегистрироваться и бесплатно создать аккаунт на HTX. Пройдите удобную регистрацию и откройте для себя весь функционал.Создать аккаунтШаг 2: Перейдите в Купить криптовалюту и выберите свой способ оплатыКредитная/Дебетовая Карта: Используйте свою карту Visa или Mastercard для мгновенной покупки USD.AI (CHIP).Баланс: Используйте средства с баланса вашего аккаунта HTX для простой торговли.Третьи Лица: Мы добавили популярные способы оплаты, такие как Google Pay и Apple Pay, для повышения удобства.P2P: Торгуйте напрямую с другими пользователями на HTX.Внебиржевая Торговля (OTC): Мы предлагаем индивидуальные услуги и конкурентоспособные обменные курсы для трейдеров.Шаг 3: Хранение USD.AI (CHIP)После приобретения вами USD.AI (CHIP) храните их в своем аккаунте на HTX. В качестве альтернативы вы можете отправить их куда-либо с помощью перевода в блокчейне или использовать для торговли с другими криптовалютами.Шаг 4: Торговля USD.AI (CHIP)С легкостью торгуйте USD.AI (CHIP) на спотовом рынке HTX. Просто зайдите в свой аккаунт, выберите торговую пару, совершайте сделки и следите за ними в режиме реального времени. Мы предлагаем удобный интерфейс как для начинающих, так и для опытных трейдеров.

422 просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2026.04.21Обновлено 2026.06.02

Как купить CHIP

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на CHIP (CHIP) представлены ниже.

活动图片