Hubbry Logo
Semiconductor intellectual property coreSemiconductor intellectual property coreMain
Open search
Semiconductor intellectual property core
Community hub
Semiconductor intellectual property core
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Semiconductor intellectual property core
Semiconductor intellectual property core
Semiconductor intellectual property core
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In electronic design, a semiconductor intellectual property core (SIP core), IP core or IP block is a reusable unit of logic, cell, or integrated circuit layout design that is the intellectual property of one party. IP cores can be licensed to another party or owned and used by a single party. The term comes from the licensing of the patent or source code copyright that exists in the design. Designers of system on chip (SoC), application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) and systems of field-programmable gate array (FPGA) logic can use IP cores as building blocks. This allows for faster design cycles and reduced development costs by leveraging pre-verified and tested components.[2]

History

[edit]

The licensing and use of IP cores in chip design came into common practice in the 1990s.[1] There were many licensors and also many foundries competing on the market. In 2013, the most widely licensed IP cores were from Arm Holdings (43.2% market share), Synopsys Inc. (13.9% market share), Imagination Technologies (9% market share) and Cadence Design Systems (5.1% market share).[2]

Types of IP cores

[edit]

The use of an IP core in chip design is comparable to the use of a library for computer programming or a discrete integrated circuit component for printed circuit board design. Each is a reusable component of design logic with a defined interface and behavior that has been verified by its creator and is integrated into a larger design.

Soft cores

[edit]

IP cores are commonly offered as synthesizable RTL in a hardware description language such as Verilog or VHDL. These are analogous to low-level languages such as C in the field of computer programming. IP cores delivered to chip designers as RTL permit chip designers to modify designs at the functional level, though many IP vendors offer no warranty or support for modified designs.[citation needed]

IP cores are also sometimes offered as generic gate-level netlists. The netlist is a Boolean-algebra representation of the IP's logical function implemented as generic gates or process-specific standard cells. An IP core implemented as generic gates can be compiled for any process technology. A gate-level netlist is analogous to an assembly code listing in the field of computer programming. A netlist gives the IP core vendor reasonable protection against reverse engineering. See also Integrated circuit layout design protection.

Both netlist and synthesizable cores are called soft cores since both allow a synthesis, placement and routing (SPR) design flow.

Hard cores

[edit]

Hard cores (or hard macros) are analog or digital IP cores whose function cannot be significantly modified by chip designers. These are generally defined as a lower-level physical description that is specific to a particular process technology. Hard cores usually offer better predictability of chip timing performance and area for their particular technology.[citation needed]

Analog and mixed-signal logic are generally distributed as hard cores. Hence, analog IP (SerDes, PLLs, DAC, ADC, PHYs, etc.) are provided to chip makers in transistor-layout format (such as GDSII). Digital IP cores are sometimes offered in layout format as well.

Low-level transistor layouts must obey the target foundry's process design rules. Therefore, hard cores delivered for one foundry's process cannot be easily ported to a different process or foundry. Merchant foundry operators (such as IBM, Fujitsu, Samsung, TI, etc.) offer various hard-macro IP functions built for their own foundry processes, helping to ensure customer lock-in.

Sources of IP cores

[edit]

Licensed functionality

[edit]

Many of the best known IP cores are soft microprocessor designs. Their instruction sets vary from small 8-bit processors, such as the 8051 and PIC, to 32-bit and 64-bit processors such as the ARM architectures or RISC-V architectures. Such processors form the "brains" of many embedded systems. They are usually RISC instruction sets rather than CISC instruction sets like x86 because less logic is required. Therefore, designs are smaller. Further, x86 leaders Intel and AMD heavily protect their processor designs' intellectual property and don't use this business model for their x86-64 lines of microprocessors.

IP cores are also licensed for various peripheral controllers such as for PCI Express, SDRAM, Ethernet, LCD display, AC'97 audio, and USB. Many of those interfaces require both digital logic and analog IP cores to drive and receive high speed, high voltage, or high impedance signals outside of the chip.

"Hardwired" (as opposed to software programmable soft microprocessors described above) digital logic IP cores are also licensed for fixed functions such as MP3 audio decode, 3D GPU, digital video encode/decode, and other DSP functions such as FFT, DCT, or Viterbi coding.

Vendors

[edit]
See also: List of semiconductor IP core vendors

IP core developers and licensors range in size from individuals to multi-billion-dollar corporations. Developers, as well as their chip-making customers, are located throughout the world.

Silicon intellectual property (SIP, silicon IP) is a business model for a semiconductor company where it licenses its technology to a customer as intellectual property. A company with such a business model is a fabless semiconductor company, which doesn't provide physical chips to its customers but merely facilitates the customer's development of chips by offering certain functional blocks. Typically, the customers are semiconductor companies or module developers with in-house semiconductor development. A company wishing to fabricate a complex device may license in the rights to use another company's well-tested functional blocks such as a microprocessor, instead of developing their own design, which would require additional time and cost.

The silicon IP industry has had stable growth for many years. The most successful silicon IP companies, often referred to as the star IP, include ARM Holdings and Synopsys. Gartner Group estimated the total value of sales related to silicon intellectual property at US $1.5 billion in 2005 with annual growth expected around 30%.[3][needs update]

IP hardening

[edit]

IP hardening is a process to re-use proven designs and generate fast time-to-market, low-risk-in-fabrication solutions to provide intellectual property (IP) (or silicon intellectual property) of design cores.

For example, a digital signal processor (DSP) is developed from soft cores of RTL format, and it can be targeted to various technologies or different foundries to yield different implementations. The process of IP hardening is from soft core to generate re-usable hard (hardware) cores[clarification needed]. A main advantage of such hard IP is its predictable characteristics as the IP has been pre-implemented, while it offers flexibility of soft cores. It might come with a set of models for simulations for verification.

Hardening soft IP involves evaluating the quality of the target technology, the design goals, and the chosen methodology. Hard IP has already been verified for use in a specific technology and application. For example, a hard core in GDSII format is considered 'clean' if it passes DRC (Design rule checking) and LVS (Layout Versus Schematic). In other words, it meets all the manufacturing requirements set by the foundry.[4][5]

Free and open-source

[edit]

Since around 2000, OpenCores.org has offered various soft cores, mostly written in VHDL and Verilog. All of these cores are provided under free and open-source software-license such as GNU General Public License or BSD-like licenses.[6] Since 2010, initiatives such as RISC-V have caused a massive expansion in the number of IP cores available (almost 50 by 2019[7]). This has helped to increase collaboration in developing secure and efficient designs.[8]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Semiconductor intellectual property core

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A semiconductor intellectual property core (SIP core or IP core) is a reusable unit of logic, functionality, cell, or (IC) layout design that serves as a pre-designed building block for developing complex chips, such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). These cores are licensed by intellectual property providers to chip designers, enabling the integration of standardized components like processors, memory controllers, and communication interfaces into system-on-chip (SoC) architectures. IP cores are categorized into three primary types based on their level of flexibility and implementation stage: soft cores, which are provided as synthesizable (HDL) source code (e.g., or ) for high customizability across different process technologies; firm cores, which are partially implemented with pre-placed and routed elements for moderate portability and configuration; and hard cores, which are fixed physical layouts (e.g., in format) optimized for a specific process, offering high performance but limited adaptability. Soft cores are ideal for early-stage design exploration due to their portability, while hard cores excel in plug-and-play scenarios for cost efficiency and reliability in production. The adoption of IP cores has become essential in modern semiconductor design to accelerate development cycles, reduce costs, and mitigate risks associated with creating complex ICs from scratch. By promoting design reuse, these cores allow engineers to focus on innovation in higher-level rather than reinventing fundamental blocks, such as Ethernet MACs, USB interfaces, or phase-locked loops (PLLs). This approach is particularly valuable in SoC designs, where multiple IP cores are combined to deliver multifunctional chips for applications in , automotive systems, and . Despite benefits like shortened time-to-market and enhanced performance optimization, challenges include potential and the need for rigorous verification to ensure across diverse IP sources.

Overview

Definition

A semiconductor intellectual property core, often abbreviated as IP core, is a reusable unit of logic, cell, or integrated circuit layout design that functions as a fundamental building block in the creation of application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). These cores encapsulate predefined functionality, allowing designers to integrate complex features into larger system-on-chip (SoC) designs without starting from scratch. Key components of an IP core typically include a outlining the intended behavior and interfaces, a behavioral model for high-level simulation (such as in or C++), (RTL) code in hardware description languages like or , a synthesized representing gate-level connectivity, and physical layout data in format for fabrication. These elements provide varying levels of abstraction and portability, enabling verification and integration at different design stages. Unlike a full chip , which involves creating an entire from the ground up, IP cores are modular, pre-designed, and pre-verified components that streamline the development process by minimizing redundant engineering efforts and reducing integration risks. This accelerates overall workflows, including time-to-market for products. Representative examples of IP cores include processor cores such as the Cortex series for computing tasks, memory controllers for handling data storage interfaces, and USB interfaces for connectivity standards.

Role in Semiconductor Design

Semiconductor intellectual property (IP) cores play a pivotal role in modern system-on-chip (SoC) design by enabling the reuse of pre-designed and verified functional blocks, which significantly accelerates the overall development process. Traditionally, designing complex chips from scratch could take several years due to the need for custom implementation of standard functions like processors, controllers, and interfaces. By integrating IP cores, designers can assemble these blocks into a cohesive SoC in a matter of months, allowing for faster time-to-market and responsiveness to evolving market demands. This reuse paradigm shifts the focus from low-level hardware implementation to higher-level system architecture and optimization. One of the primary benefits of IP cores is substantial cost savings in semiconductor development. Reusing verified IP eliminates the need for redundant engineering efforts on foundational components, which can account for a large portion of the design budget. Industry analyses estimate that IP adoption leads to substantial reductions in non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs, particularly for complex SoCs where custom design would otherwise require extensive verification and testing resources. These savings are especially pronounced in iterative design cycles, where modifications to reused IP can be managed more efficiently than rebuilding from the ground up. IP cores are essential for enabling the creation of increasingly complex integrated systems within the constraints of limited area and power budgets. They facilitate the seamless integration of diverse functionalities, such as combining AI accelerators with high-speed peripherals and modules, into a single die without proportional increases in design complexity or area overhead. This capability is crucial for applications in mobile devices, , and data centers, where performance demands continue to escalate. Without IP cores, achieving such multi-functionality would be impractical due to the in design effort. For fabless semiconductor companies and high-volume production scenarios, IP cores have become a prerequisite for viability in the industry. These entities, which lack in-house fabrication or full custom design teams, rely on licensed or standardized IP to bridge gaps in expertise and resources, enabling them to compete with integrated device manufacturers (IDMs). This dependency underscores the IP ecosystem's role in democratizing advanced chip design, fostering innovation across a broader range of players while supporting scalable manufacturing for consumer and enterprise markets.

Historical Development

Origins in ASIC Era

The proliferation of application-specific integrated circuits () in the 1980s and 1990s marked the emergence of semiconductor intellectual property (IP) cores, as design complexity surged with advancing . Companies such as and LSI Logic played pivotal roles in this era, pioneering the ASIC model by establishing their own fabrication facilities and providing services that bridged system designers' needs with manufacturing expertise. These firms supplied reusable cell libraries—pre-designed basic building blocks like logic gates and flip-flops—enabling faster and more cost-effective custom chip development compared to full-custom designs. A key milestone occurred around , when major players including introduced reusable design blocks to address the escalating challenges of ASIC complexity, such as longer design cycles and higher error rates in large-scale integrations. IBM's approach involved "books"—pre-verified macro libraries for gate arrays that could be integrated into new designs—allowing engineers to reuse tested components rather than redesigning from scratch. This innovation was part of a broader industry shift toward modular methodologies, supported by emerging standards like (standardized in 1987) and early logic synthesis tools, which facilitated the creation and integration of these blocks. Early IP cores primarily focused on simple peripherals, such as universal asynchronous receiver-transmitters (UARTs) for and timers for clock generation and event timing, which were essential yet time-consuming to implement custom. These blocks were often delivered as soft macros in or behavioral descriptions, providing verified functionality that reduced verification overhead in cell-based . For instance, gate arrays from LSI Logic incorporated such peripherals as embedded macros, streamlining I/O and control logic integration. Amid the relentless pace of , which doubled densities approximately every two years and intensified performance demands, the industry transitioned from fully custom designs to modular paradigms leveraging IP cores. This shift mitigated the "design productivity gap," where manual custom design could not keep up with silicon capacity growth, enabling faster time-to-market and lower costs through reuse. By the mid-1990s, this modular approach had become foundational, with IP blocks forming the backbone of hierarchical ASIC architectures.

Evolution and Standardization

The 2000s marked a significant boom in the intellectual property (IP) core ecosystem, driven by the rise of the model, which allowed companies to focus on design and IP integration without owning fabrication facilities. Pioneering firms like exemplified this shift, leveraging licensed IP to accelerate chip development and achieve market leadership in mobile processors by outsourcing manufacturing to foundries such as . Similarly, , founded in 1990, intensified its IP licensing strategy post-2000, providing processor cores that became foundational for fabless designs in embedded and mobile applications, fostering the growth of third-party pure-play IP vendors. This period saw the emergence of specialized IP companies offering standardized blocks for interfaces like USB and , reducing design complexity and time-to-market for system-on-chip (SoC) implementations. Standardization efforts were crucial to this maturation, enabling interoperability across diverse IP blocks and vendor ecosystems. ARM introduced the Advanced Microcontroller Bus Architecture (AMBA) protocol in 1996 as an open standard for on-chip communications, with initial versions including the Advanced System Bus (ASB) and Advanced Peripheral Bus (APB); it evolved significantly, reaching AMBA 5 in 2013 to support higher performance and coherence in multi-core systems. Complementing this, Intel developed the Avalon interface family in the early 2000s for its FPGA and SoC platforms, defining memory-mapped, streaming, and interrupt protocols that simplified component integration in programmable logic designs. These protocols addressed the challenges of connecting heterogeneous IP cores, promoting reuse and scalability in complex SoCs. From the 2010s into the 2020s, the landscape shifted toward open standards and domain-specific IP to meet escalating demands from emerging technologies. The , announced in 2010 by researchers at the , emerged as a , enabling customizable processor IP cores that disrupted proprietary models and spurred innovation in IoT and . Concurrently, the proliferation of networks and IoT devices fueled growth in AI and (ML) IP cores, with vendors developing specialized accelerators for neural processing units (NPUs) to handle real-time data analytics and low-power inference. This era also saw increased adoption of open-source IP alternatives, broadening access for startups and reducing dependency on licensed blocks. As of 2025, recent trends emphasize advanced packaging and security enhancements in IP cores to support next-generation computing paradigms. Integration with 3D integrated circuits (ICs) has gained traction through standards like , announced in 2022, which facilitates die-to-die interconnects for heterogeneous chiplets, improving performance in high-bandwidth applications such as AI and . Additionally, the rise of quantum-resistant security IP reflects growing concerns over threats, with new cores implementing NIST-approved algorithms like ML-KEM and ML-DSA for secure in ASICs and FPGAs.

Classification

Soft IP Cores

Soft IP cores are reusable blocks of logic delivered as synthesizable (RTL) code, typically written in hardware description languages such as or , enabling portability across various process technologies and foundries without requiring modifications to the core logic. This technology-agnostic format allows the integrating team to perform synthesis, place-and-route, and optimization tailored to their specific fabrication process, ensuring broad applicability in system-on-chip (SoC) designs. The primary advantages of soft IP cores lie in their high flexibility and ease of customization, permitting designers to modify the RTL for , feature additions, or adaptation to new standards while maintaining compatibility across different nodes. However, these benefits come with drawbacks, including extended implementation timelines due to the required synthesis and physical steps, which can introduce variability in timing closure and power consumption, as performance is not pre-characterized. Additionally, the provision of editable often results in higher licensing costs compared to more rigid formats. Development of soft IP cores begins with behavioral modeling to define high-level functionality, followed by translation into detailed RTL descriptions using standard logic elements like registers and arithmetic units, ensuring synthesizability and functional accuracy. Verification environments, including models and testbenches, are to this process, allowing early detection of issues before delivery, often accompanied by such as integration guides and metadata for seamless reuse. Soft IP cores are commonly employed for implementing complex logic blocks, such as embedded processors (e.g., or ARM-compatible cores) and digital signal processors (DSPs), where the need for portability and algorithmic customization outweighs the demand for fixed physical layouts. In contrast to hard IP, their abstract nature prioritizes design adaptability in evolving SoC architectures over immediate performance predictability.

Firm IP Cores

Firm IP cores serve as an intermediate category in semiconductor intellectual property, bridging the gap between soft and hard cores by delivering synthesized, technology-specific netlists at the post-synthesis and pre-place-and-route stage. This format provides partial optimization, such as logic restructuring and initial constraint application, tailored to a particular process library or node, while retaining some configurability for integration into the broader system-on-chip (SoC) design. The primary advantages of firm IP cores lie in their balance of portability and performance: they enable faster design closure than soft cores by avoiding redundant synthesis efforts, yet offer more adaptability than hard cores, which are rigidly fixed to physical layouts. This hybrid nature results in improved predictability for timing, power, and area metrics, reducing integration risks and accelerating time-to-market for complex . For instance, firm cores can be further tuned during floorplanning without the full overhead of re-synthesizing from (RTL) descriptions. Development of firm IP cores typically involves synthesizing the core's RTL into a gate-level using target technology libraries, followed by floorplanning to define hierarchical boundaries and initial timing analysis to meet setup and hold requirements. This pre-optimized state ensures compatibility with the designer's tools while allowing adjustments for specific voltage domains or clock frequencies before proceeding to physical implementation. Deliverables often include the , synthesis scripts, timing reports, and verification models to facilitate seamless incorporation. Examples of firm IP cores include optimized communication interfaces, such as PCIe controllers targeted at advanced nodes like 7nm, where the incorporates structural optimizations for high-speed signaling and protocol compliance, enabling efficient adaptation to SoC architectures without full redesign.

Hard IP Cores

Hard IP cores represent the most fixed form of , delivered as pre-designed physical layouts in format, which is a standard for mask layouts. These cores are specifically optimized and tuned for a particular process technology node and operating voltage, incorporating all necessary physical design elements such as placements, interconnects, and timing constraints. This delivery format ensures that the core is ready for direct placement into the chip's layout without requiring further logical synthesis or major modifications. The primary advantages of hard IP cores stem from their fully realized physical implementation, which provides highly predictable metrics, including timing, power consumption, and silicon area utilization. Since the design has already undergone detailed and optimization for the target process, integration into the overall system-on-chip (SoC) typically involves minimal post-placement adjustments, reducing the risk of timing violations or unexpected power issues during final . This predictability is particularly valuable in time-sensitive design cycles where silicon validation is critical. However, hard IP cores suffer from low portability across different manufacturing processes or technology nodes, often necessitating a complete redesign and re-verification if the target fabrication parameters change. This specificity ties the core tightly to a single foundry's , increasing costs and effort for adaptations, such as migrating from one nanometer node to another. As a result, they are less flexible for multi-project or evolving designs compared to more abstract IP forms. Hard IP cores are commonly employed in applications requiring high precision and reliability, such as analog and mixed-signal blocks including phase-locked loops (PLLs), analog-to-digital converters (ADCs), and (SRAM) macros. These components benefit from the fixed layout's ability to achieve optimal electrical characteristics, like low noise and precise , which are challenging to replicate through synthesis alone. For instance, PLLs used in clock generation and SRAM for on-chip caching are frequently distributed as hard IP to ensure consistent performance in complex SoCs.

Sourcing Options

Commercial Licensing

Commercial licensing enables semiconductor designers to acquire pre-verified, proprietary (IP) cores from established vendors, accelerating development while leveraging specialized expertise in areas like processors, interfaces, and memory controllers. Leading vendors include , which dominates processor IP for mobile and embedded applications; , offering a broad DesignWare portfolio encompassing interface, analog, and foundation IP; , providing configurable processor IP for dataplane and AI acceleration; and , specializing in high-speed memory interfaces and PHY IP for DRAM and storage standards. The acquisition process for these IP cores generally starts with potential licensees signing a (NDA) to gain access to confidential technical documentation, datasheets, and models. Vendors then issue evaluation licenses, which permit time-limited or feature-restricted use of the IP for prototyping, , and initial within the buyer's design environment. Successful evaluations lead to full licensing agreements, involving payment for perpetual or subscription-based rights, along with vendor-provided support such as technical assistance, bug fixes, and compatibility updates for evolving standards. Vendors frequently provide hardening services to tailor IP cores to customer-specific needs, transforming synthesizable soft cores into layout-optimized implementations suitable for production. For example, offers comprehensive RTL-to-GDSII hardening, including physical , signal and power integrity analysis, and integration support to ensure seamless SoC deployment. Parameterizable cores, common in offerings from these vendors, allow users to configure parameters like bus widths, clock frequencies, or feature sets during synthesis, enabling adaptation to target process technology nodes such as 7nm, 5nm, or advanced nodes below 3nm. A key illustration of commercial licensing's impact is Arm's pervasive role in mobile SoCs, where its Cortex and Neoverse processor IP has enabled licensees like and to build high-volume chips; as of November 2025, Arm-based designs had cumulatively shipped over 325 billion units, underscoring the vendor's market leadership in power-efficient computing.

Open-Source Alternatives

Open-source alternatives to commercial (IP) cores provide freely accessible designs developed and maintained by communities, enabling cost-effective integration into system-on-chip (SoC) designs without licensing fees. These cores are typically released under permissive licenses like BSD or , allowing modification and redistribution, which fosters collaboration among developers, researchers, and hobbyists. Key platforms for hosting and sharing such IP include OpenCores.org, a dedicated community site for gateware IP cores since 1999, repositories aggregating various hardware designs, and the International ecosystem, which supports generators like Rocket Chip for customizable processor cores. Prominent examples illustrate the diversity of open-source IP. The OpenRISC processor, an open-source 32/64-bit RISC architecture, offers implementations like OR1200 for embedded systems, providing a fully synthesizable core with toolchain support. The Wishbone bus standard, introduced in 1999 by Silicore and now maintained by , serves as a portable SoC interconnection architecture for linking IP cores, supporting point-to-point, shared bus, and crossbar topologies to ensure compatibility across designs. Additionally, free USB cores, such as the USB 2.0 Function Core and USB 1.1 Host and Function IP on , enable high-speed device interfaces with features like UTMI PHY support and transfer types including control, bulk, and isochronous. These alternatives offer significant benefits, including the absence of royalties, which reduces upfront costs for startups and academic projects, and community-driven verification that leverages collective expertise for bug identification and improvements. However, they come with drawbacks such as variable quality due to inconsistent maturity levels across contributors and limited commercial support, often requiring in-house expertise for integration and . The adoption of open-source IP has surged alongside , an open , with tens of billions of RISC-V cores shipped cumulatively as of 2025 and billions shipping annually, driven by its royalty-free nature and extensibility in applications from IoT to AI accelerators. This growth underscores the shift toward collaborative ecosystems, contrasting with models by emphasizing accessibility over vendor-specific optimizations.

In-House Creation

In-house creation of semiconductor intellectual property (IP) cores refers to the internal development process undertaken by companies to design reusable logic blocks tailored to their specific system-on-chip (SoC) requirements. This approach begins with defining detailed specifications that outline the core's functionality, performance metrics, and interface standards, followed by architectural to map high-level behaviors to hardware structures. The subsequent stages involve coding in hardware description languages like or , synthesis to convert RTL into gate-level netlists, and physical for layout optimization. Verification is a critical phase, employing advanced tools such as VCS for functional verification through cycle-accurate simulations and Xcelium for high-performance parallel logic to detect and resolve flaws early. Finally, comprehensive documentation ensures the core's reusability, including models, testbenches, and integration guidelines. Companies typically pursue in-house IP core development when pursuing proprietary innovations that demand customization beyond available commercial options, particularly in high-stakes domains like . For instance, hyperscalers such as develop custom Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) as specialized IP cores for acceleration, optimizing tensor operations for cloud-scale AI workloads. Similarly, Apple creates Neural Engine IP cores integrated into its A-series and M-series processors, enabling efficient on-device AI inference for features like image recognition and . This strategy is favored by vertically integrated firms seeking competitive differentiation through unique architectural features not replicable via third-party licensing. The primary advantages of in-house creation include complete control over the IP's evolution, allowing precise tailoring to internal architectures and iterative enhancements based on proprietary data, which fosters and reduces dependency on external vendors. However, this method incurs high upfront costs for specialized talent, EDA tools, and prototyping hardware, often extending development timelines by months or years due to the need for rigorous validation. It also demands deep expertise in areas like power optimization and process node compatibility, which may strain resources in organizations without dedicated design teams. To mitigate these challenges and maximize efficiency, best practices emphasize building and reusing internal libraries of verified components, such as libraries or peripheral modules, to accelerate new core development and cultivate a cohesive company-specific IP portfolio. This reuse strategy involves establishing centralized repositories with and abstraction layers to ensure compatibility across projects, thereby reducing design redundancy and enabling faster time-to-silicon. Regular audits and principles further support scalability, allowing teams to incrementally expand the portfolio while maintaining quality standards.

Integration Process

Design Incorporation

The integration of semiconductor intellectual property (IP) cores into a larger chip design begins with the selection of appropriate cores based on the system's requirements, such as performance, power consumption, and functionality needs. Standards such as IP-XACT (IEEE 1685) are often used to package and describe IP cores, including their interfaces, parameters, and configurations, facilitating automated integration, reuse, and interoperability across tools and vendors. Once selected, the IP core is instantiated within the register-transfer level (RTL) description or netlist of the overall design, where it is connected to other modules. Interface matching is a critical step, ensuring compatibility between the IP core's ports and the surrounding logic, often achieved through standardized protocols like the AMBA (Advanced Microcontroller Bus Architecture) and its APB (Advanced Peripheral Bus) variant, which facilitate efficient on-chip communication between IP blocks. Electronic design automation (EDA) tools play a pivotal role in this process, particularly for hard IP cores, which are pre-layout blocks requiring physical placement. For instance, Innovus is widely used for place-and-route operations, enabling the insertion of hard IP macros into the floorplan while optimizing timing and area. Integration of soft IP cores, which are provided as synthesizable RTL, typically occurs earlier at the logical design stage, whereas hard IP cores are handled during physical implementation to account for their fixed layout. Several challenges arise during design incorporation, including ensuring pin compatibility to align the IP core's I/O pins with the chip's overall pinout and managing (CDC), where signals transfer between asynchronous clock domains, potentially leading to or . To address these, solutions such as wrapper generation are employed; wrappers encapsulate the IP core, providing standardized interfaces, buffering for CDC, and pin adaptation without altering the core itself. A typical example flow for soft IP integration involves synthesizing the RTL code of the core using tools like Design Compiler, followed by treating the synthesized as a in the top-level assembly to preserve internal details while enabling hierarchical integration with other design elements.

Verification Methods

Verification of semiconductor intellectual property (IP) cores is essential to confirm their correct functionality and integration within larger systems, mitigating risks of defects that could lead to costly respins or system failures. This process employs a combination of , , and to exhaustively test core behavior under diverse conditions, ensuring compliance with specifications and . Simulation-based verification, particularly using the Universal Verification Methodology (UVM), is a cornerstone approach for IP cores, enabling the creation of reusable testbenches that model stimuli and check responses in a controlled environment. UVM, standardized in , facilitates constrained-random testing to cover a wide range of scenarios, making it ideal for verifying complex digital designs like processors or memory controllers. Formal verification methods complement simulation by applying mathematical proofs to exhaustively analyze core properties, such as equivalence between RTL and gate-level implementations or assertion of temporal behaviors, without relying on test vectors. Emulation on FPGA prototypes accelerates verification for large IP blocks by running real-time hardware simulations, bridging the gap between software simulation speed and silicon accuracy, especially for performance-critical cores. IP providers typically supply self-contained testbenches with their cores, including predefined stimuli, checkers, and coverage models to enable standalone validation before . These testbenches often incorporate protocol-specific components, such as bus monitors for AMBA interfaces, allowing users to verify core functionality independently. For system-level co-verification, IP cores are tested within representative SoC environments to detect integration issues, such as bus contention or timing mismatches, using hybrid simulation-emulation setups that combine multiple cores and software drivers. Verification success is measured against coverage metrics, with industry goals often targeting 100% functional coverage to ensure all specified behaviors are exercised and at least 95% to confirm that design logic paths are stimulated. Tools like ' Questa platform support these metrics through integrated , formal , and coverage reporting, automating regression runs and bug detection for IP cores. Emerging AI-driven verification techniques are addressing the challenges of increasingly complex IP cores, such as modems, by automating test generation, bug prioritization, and coverage closure using models trained on data. These methods reduce manual effort in formal property synthesis and , improving efficiency for high-bandwidth, protocol-heavy designs.

Business Aspects

Licensing Models

Semiconductor IP core licensing models commonly combine an upfront license fee with ongoing royalties to balance initial access costs against long-term revenue for the licensor. The upfront fee, often determined by the IP's complexity and the licensee's projected volume, grants initial rights to integrate the core into designs, while royalties—typically calculated as a of the chip's selling or per unit shipped—provide recurring as products enter production. For instance, Arm's model charges royalties of 1-2% of the chip's average selling for its processor cores, enabling broad while ensuring the licensor benefits from market success. Licenses may be structured as perpetual, granting indefinite use rights after a one-time , or as subscriptions, involving periodic fees for continued access, updates, and support. Perpetual models suit stable, mature IP where licensees prefer ownership-like control without renewal risks, whereas subscriptions align with rapidly evolving technologies, offering flexibility and vendor accountability for enhancements. Vendors like provide subscription options without royalties, allowing unlimited deployment within the term, which reduces barriers for high-volume users. Negotiations frequently incorporate volume discounts to incentivize large-scale , scaling fees downward based on committed production quantities, and field-of-use restrictions to segment rights by application, such as limiting automotive-grade IP to safety-critical systems versus general consumer devices. These terms protect licensors from market cannibalization while tailoring costs to licensee needs. Legal elements underpin these agreements, including non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to safeguard proprietary details during evaluation and integration, escrow provisions depositing with a neutral third party for release if the licensor becomes insolvent or defaults on support, and warranty clauses affirming the IP's functionality, compatibility, and freedom from third-party infringement claims. Such protections mitigate risks in complex ecosystems, ensuring reliability and . As an example of specialized pricing, Synopsys employs per-gate models for certain logic IP, charging based on the equivalent gate count integrated into the design to align costs with usage scale. When delivering designs to semiconductor foundries for manufacturing, intellectual property is protected through strict non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and confidentiality obligations that bind foundry personnel and subcontractors. Foundries implement "firewall" mechanisms to isolate client-specific products, processes, and activities from those of competing customers, ensuring no unauthorized access, use, or reference to client IP. For instance, foundry agreements with TSMC and SMIC explicitly require such firewalls between client projects and other operations, along with security measures to prevent disclosure or misuse. The semiconductor intellectual property (IP) core market, encompassing reusable design blocks for chip development, was valued at USD 7.5 billion in 2024. Projections indicate steady growth, with the market expected to reach USD 11.2 billion by 2029, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.5%. This expansion reflects the increasing complexity of integrated circuits and the need for specialized IP in high-performance applications. Key drivers include surging demand for AI accelerators, advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) in automotive sectors, and solutions that require efficient, low-latency processing. The shift toward advanced manufacturing nodes, such as 3nm and below, further accelerates IP adoption, as these processes demand optimized designs for power efficiency and performance in data-intensive environments. Despite these opportunities, the industry faces significant challenges, including risks of theft through cyber espionage and supply chain vulnerabilities. Geopolitical tensions, particularly U.S.- trade restrictions and controls, exacerbate disruptions in global s, complicating IP licensing and transfers. Looking ahead, the market is poised for evolution with greater adoption of open-source IP cores, enabling faster innovation and cost reduction for developers in collaborative ecosystems. Emerging technologies like are also gaining traction, with IP development focusing on integrated optical components to support high-speed data transmission in AI and .

References

  1. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/IP-core-intellectual-property-core
  2. https://anysilicon.com/ip-intellectual-property-core-semiconductors/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/intellectual-property-core
  4. https://www.synopsys.com/designware-ip.html
  5. https://twins.ee.nctu.edu.tw/courses/ip_core_01/handout_pdf/Chapter_4.pdf
  6. https://mixel.com/support/deliverables/
  7. https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/BCG-x-SIA-Strengthening-the-Global-Semiconductor-Value-Chain-April-2021_1.pdf
  8. https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-system
  9. https://semiwiki.com/eda/1587-a-brief-history-of-asic-part-i/
  10. https://www.company-histories.com/VLSI-Technology-Inc-Company-History.html
  11. https://pg024ec.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/01_asic-book-by-michael-smith.pdf
  12. https://www.yic-electronics.com/blog/Semiconductor-IP-Core-Origin%2CTypes-and-Application.html
  13. https://anysilicon.com/semiconductor-ip-intellectual-property-core-introduction/
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2199853122002621
  15. https://www.designing-electronics.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-semiconductor-ip-interconnect/
  16. https://www.arm.com/architecture/system-architectures/amba
  17. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683091/20-1/introduction-to-the-interface-specifications.html
  18. https://riscv.org/about/
  19. https://www.ceva-ip.com/wp-content/uploads/2025-Edge-AI-Technology-Report.pdf
  20. https://www.design-reuse.com/news/202529618-cast-expands-security-ip-line-with-new-family-of-post-quantum-cryptography-cores/
  21. https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/intellectual-property/soft-ip/
  22. https://www.perforce.com/blog/mdx/what-is-ip-core
  23. https://techovedas.com/what-are-ip-cores-in-semiconductor-design-types-advantages/
  24. https://alexmilenkovich.github.io/publications/files/milenkovic_mse03.pdf
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271555511_IP_cores_design_from_specifications_to_production_Modeling_verification_optimization_and_protection
  26. https://www.design-reuse.com/article/58358-fpga-soft-processor-design-considerations/
  27. https://www.eetimes.com/dsp-ip-cores-fuel-pld-adoption/
  28. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/1/3/0/0130338575.pdf
  29. https://semiengineering.com/its-all-ip-in-an-soc/
  30. https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/intellectual-property/hard-ip/
  31. https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1357158/1357158.pdf
  32. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/semiconductor-silicon-intellectual-property-ip-market.asp
  33. https://www.rambus.com/interface-ip/
  34. https://www.design-reuse.com/article/58443-business-considerations-in-soc-ip-procurement/
  35. https://www.synopsys.com/support/licensing-installation-computeplatforms.html
  36. https://www.synopsys.com/designware-ip/ip-accelerated/ip-hardening.html
  37. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/813669/24-1-4-0-0/specifying-the-ip-core-parameters-and.html
  38. https://www.eetasia.com/embeddednews-computex-2025-arm-champions-performance-per-watt-for-ai-from-cloud-to-edge/
  39. https://quartr.com/companies/arm-holdings-plc_15259
  40. https://www.tessolve.com/blogs/open-source-hardware-in-the-semiconductor-industry/
  41. https://semiengineering.com/open-source-hardware-risks/
  42. https://opencores.org/
  43. https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip
  44. https://openrisc.io/
  45. https://opencores.org/projects/wishbone
  46. https://cdn.opencores.org/downloads/wbspec_b3.pdf
  47. https://opencores.org/projects/usb
  48. https://opencores.org/projects/usbhostslave
  49. https://www.design-reuse.com/article/58402-successful-use-of-an-open-source-processor-in-a-commercial-asic/
  50. https://medium.com/gitconnected/risc-v-the-open-architecture-challenging-intel-and-arm-c3f0f3af3b6a
  51. https://riscv.org/blog/how-nvidia-shipped-one-billion-risc-v-cores-in-2024/
  52. https://riscv.org/blog/the-risc-v-revolution-insights-from-the-2025-summits-and-andes-technologys-pivotal-role/
  53. https://www.tessolve.com/blogs/semiconductor-ip-intellectual-property-design-leveraging-pre-designed-blocks/
  54. https://www.synopsys.com/verification/simulation/vcs.html
  55. https://www.cadence.com/en_US/home/tools/system-design-and-verification/simulation-and-testbench-verification/xcelium-simulator.html
  56. https://www.meegle.com/en_us/topics/chip-design/chip-design-verification
  57. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/introducing-googles-new-arm-based-cpu
  58. https://pynomial.com/2025/03/apple-neural-engine-vs-google-tpu-vs-nvidia-tensor-cores/
  59. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-ai-chips-macs-smartwatches-servers/
  60. https://a2globalelectronics.com/shortage-mitigation/in-house-semiconductor-chip-design-benefits-and-challenges/
  61. https://www.icmanage.com/ip-reuse-best-practices-soc-ic-fpga-design/
  62. https://www.keysight.com/blogs/en/tech/sim-des/semiconductor-ip-management-strategies-to-accelerate-design-flows
  63. https://www.accellera.org/downloads/standards/ip-xact
  64. https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~dbouldin/protected/soc-flow.pdf
  65. https://anysilicon.com/understanding-amba-bus-architecture-protocols/
  66. https://www.cadence.com/en_US/home/tools/digital-design-and-signoff/soc-implementation-and-floorplanning/innovus-implementation-system.html
  67. https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/what-is-clock-domain-crossing.html
  68. https://anysilicon.com/ip-verification-ultimate-guide/
  69. https://verificationacademy.com/topics/uvm-universal-verification-methodology/
  70. https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/eda-design/verification/formal-verification/
  71. https://verificationacademy.com/topics/fpga-verification/
  72. https://www.design-reuse.com/article/59084-verification-of-ip-core-based-soc-s/
  73. https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-services/303166-verification-completion-when-is-enough-enough-part-i/
  74. https://eda.sw.siemens.com/en-US/ic/questa-one/
  75. https://www.analogictips.com/how-ai-and-ml-optimize-functional-verification-for-eda/
  76. https://anysilicon.com/ip-business-model/
  77. https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/2
  78. https://financhill.com/blog/investing/is-arm-holdings-stock-a-buy-now
  79. https://www.cast-inc.com/blog/explaining-casts-flexible-ip-licensing
  80. https://www.oreganosystems.at/products/ip-cores/syn1588r
  81. https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/support/general/sep_portal/document/index/guide-seps-en.pdf
  82. https://patentpc.com/blog/field-of-use-restrictions-in-ip-licensing-why-they-matter
  83. https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Technology_Licensing.pdf
  84. https://www.brookskushman.com/insights/the-fear-of-partnering-in-semiconductor-manufacturing-how-to-mitigate-risk-and-protect-your-ip/
  85. https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Software_Escrows.pdf
  86. https://businesslawtoday.org/2025/09/representation-warranty-provisions-technology-transfer-open-source-software-snare/
  87. https://www.chipestimate.com/Quantifying-Entitlement-for-1416nm-Technologies/eSilicon/Technical-Article/2014/08/12
  88. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1322705/000119312505238671/dex1033.htm
  89. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1322705/000119312508229790/dex101.htm
  90. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/semiconductor-silicon-intellectual-property-ip-market-651.html
  91. https://www.precedenceresearch.com/semiconductor-ip-market
  92. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/semiconductor-industry-landscape
  93. https://www.centerforcybersecuritypolicy.org/insights-and-research/nist-analyzing-collusion-threats-in-the-semiconductor-supply-chain
  94. https://www.exiger.com/perspectives/chip-challenges-semiconductors-and-supply-chain-risks/
  95. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/semiconductor-ip-market-outlook-20262033-trends-growth-yj1lc/
  96. https://www.csis.org/analysis/controlling-light-silicon-photonics-emerging-front-us-china-tech-competition
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.