Talk:Application-specific integrated circuit

message: Chips with a cpu and rom are not ASICs. As the programming in that kind of chip is digitally in the memory and not in the circuit. So even though the chip is designed for a specific application its not an ASIC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44D:793F:1:F144:758A:BCAD:7EB1 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

message: :(moved out of my talk page to where the talk belongs Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - There are zillions of various types of ASICs. This is a standard type of device, a generic type of integrated circuits. Just like with GPU, SIMD, etc., it makes no sense to list some of many applications without particular reason, such as a breakthrough in arhitecture, lion market stare, etc., discussed in independent sources. Same as with articles internal combustion engine or doorknob. Each piece of information has its hierarchical article scope. YOu write in bitcoin article what kind of ASIC it uses, not vice versa.  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, pulling from your example of GPU, the article includes several references to implementations such as Geforce, Radeon, Windows NT Desktops, etc. For anyone not familiar with ASICs, adding info on usage in technology and evolution of use seems reasonable for context on the subject. If your problem is an issue with the content and sources I have added, please be direct and tell me what is the issue with the content added. Shaded0 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Radeon, Geforce are well known major players in GPU. Are there any sources which claim that bitcoin is a major payer in ASIC field? Same with others. In other words, keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

text: BTW please see Field-programmable_gate_array#Modern_developments for an example how particular companies are mentioned in conjunction of novel approaches. Not simply new usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright I understand your point now, thanks for explaining. To address your second comment, this is a good reference and would be helpful to see something like that added to this article. The citations on this article also really need to be improved or added upon. Shaded0 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASIC article revert 

message: Bitcoin is really the future of currency and most people quit their daily jobs just for these great and the passive income they receive online, the world is really transforming and and online streams really pay good commissions that can free everyone from depts to the life you were meant for, learning the system might seem hard but that requires you to relax your mind and don't be hard on yourself because you might just crack your skill and decide to quit and live your cheque behind, meditate, risk, be passionate and you will serve your purpose in life, you know about this system because you need it, so why don't you keep it and make it work in your favour, free yourself and learn the new world because Morden species also require Morden and special tools that never existed before and most people still do not believe on online income streams because of this filthy scammers who are out for your hard earned cash, I recommend going all out to checking reviews on YouTube and social media platforms to hear what other people have to say about that certain product, reading comments can also guide you with quick tips on how to use the product and which other apps are good  Mthokow (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitcoin 

message: From reading this article, it would seem like ASICs are exclusively digital circuits. The first and only time 'analog' is mentioned is the 'Full Custom' section. I feel like this does not represent the status of industry that well. As far as I am aware most 'true' ASICs designed for a single end-user product are some form of mixed-signal product? TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feels like strong digital focus 

message: The Standard-cell designs subsection repeats what the Integrated circuit design says. I propose to move it. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard-cell designs