By the year 2021, there are likely to be 48 billion connected internet-of-things (IoT) devices. Of this myriad of connected smart devices, it is estimated to 30% of them will include Bluetooth technology.
The low energy Bluetooth 5 specification has been developed to be a key IoT enabler. This new protocol brings some major advances, making it ideal for wider spectrum of IoT applications. It doubles device speed to 2MB/s, allowing eight times the data capacity, increases the range fourfold to 240m, and allows mesh topology networks.
We present a technological and economical comparison of four of the newest and most competitive systems-on-chips (SoCs) available on the market today from four different manufacturers. They are: the QN9080 from NXP; the QCC5121 from Qualcomm; the DA14585 from Dialog Semiconductor; and the nRF52810 from Nordic Semiconductor.
We base our analysis on full teardowns of the dies and packages to unveil the technological choices made by the different manufacturers.
We also estimated the different participants in the supply chain. The combination of the two allowed us to simulate the cost of these different components.
This report contains a complete cost analysis and a cost estimation of the SoCs. Finally, it features an exhaustive comparison between the studied samples, highlighting the similarities and differences and their impact on cost.
- Executive Summary
- Reverse Costing Methodology
2. Physical Analysis
- Summary of the Physical Analysis
- Package overviews, dimensions
- Die views and dimensions
- Die delayering and main block IDs
- Die processes
- Die cross-sections
- Die process characteristics
3. Manufacturing Process Flow
- Die Front-End Process and Fabrication Unit
- Back-End Process and Fabrication Unit
- Summary of Inputs
4. Cost Analysis
- Summary of the Cost Analysis
- Yields Explanation and Hypotheses
- Die front-end costs
- Die probe test and dicing
- Packaged Component
- Packaging costs
- Back end: final test
- Component costs
5. Physical Comparison
6. Cost Comparison
7. Comparison Summary