Skip to content

Emerging Technology

FPGA Design Services

An FPGA lets you build custom digital logic in hardware that runs in parallel, giving you deterministic, ultra-low-latency, high-throughput behaviour a processor executing instructions one after another simply cannot match. It is also one of the most specialist, expensive and slow-to-develop disciplines in engineering, and it is genuine over-engineering for anything a CPU, GPU or ordinary software can handle at acceptable performance. We reach for an FPGA only when the hard real-time, latency or throughput requirement genuinely leaves no other answer, and we will tell you plainly when it does not.

Book a consultationTalk to us

What FPGA Design means in practice

Who it’s for: Organisations with a genuine hard real-time, ultra-low-latency or high-throughput requirement (or a need for a custom hardware interface), that software on a CPU or GPU cannot meet, and who need reconfigurable-hardware logic engineered by specialists rather than approximated by people learning the discipline on their problem.

An FPGA (a field-programmable gate array), is a chip full of reconfigurable logic that you wire into whatever digital circuit you need. Instead of writing instructions for a processor to execute one after another, you describe the actual hardware (the gates, registers and data paths), in a hardware description language such as VHDL, Verilog or SystemVerilog, and the FPGA becomes that circuit. The consequence is the thing that makes FPGAs worth the trouble: the logic runs in parallel, in hardware, so a computation that a CPU grinds through step by step happens across the whole chip at once, every clock cycle, with timing you can predict to the nanosecond. That gives you deterministic, ultra-low-latency, high-throughput behaviour that software on a general-purpose processor, however fast, is structurally unable to reach.

That power comes at a price that has to be stated up front, because it is the whole point of hiring people who are honest about it. FPGA design is a deeply specialist discipline with a steep learning curve, long design cycles, expensive tooling and slow iteration: synthesising and placing a design, then closing timing on it, can take hours for changes that in software would be a recompile and a rerun. It is over-engineering, plainly, for anything a CPU, a GPU or a well-written piece of software can already do at acceptable performance. You reach for an FPGA when you have a hard requirement: a latency floor, a throughput ceiling, a deterministic real-time deadline, or a custom hardware interface. That software genuinely cannot meet, and not before. Most problems are not that problem.

So the most valuable thing we do on an FPGA engagement often happens before any hardware is described: working out whether you actually need one. Where a GPU would give you the throughput more cheaply, or a fast software implementation on a modern CPU would clear your latency budget with room to spare, we will say so and point you there, because putting a problem onto an FPGA that did not need to be there buys you months of specialist effort and a maintenance burden in exchange for performance you were never going to use. When the requirement is real, though: the microsecond that a trade has to fit inside, the gigabits per second a sensor pours out, the deterministic control loop that cannot ever jitter. An FPGA is not over-engineering at all. It is the only tool that does the job, and we build it properly.

What you get

  • RTL design in VHDL, Verilog or SystemVerilog for your target FPGA. The actual digital logic, described as hardware and written to meet the timing, throughput and resource constraints of the device rather than adapted from software habits that do not survive contact with a clock
  • A thorough simulation and verification environment built alongside the design, testbenches that exercise the logic before it ever reaches silicon, because on an FPGA the gap between "compiles" and "works" is wide and the cheapest place to catch a bug is in simulation, not on the board
  • Timing closure taken seriously as its own discipline, constraints written and defended, critical paths analysed, and the design made to meet timing at the target clock reliably rather than passing once and failing on the next build or the next temperature
  • Custom hardware interfaces and protocols implemented in logic, high-speed serial links, custom sensor and instrument interfaces, and the bus and protocol work that connects the FPGA to the rest of your system
  • Hardware acceleration of a specific, well-chosen computation, signal processing, image processing or another parallelisable workload moved into the fabric where its parallelism actually pays, with the software and hardware boundary designed deliberately
  • The hardware/software co-design boundary defined and built, deciding what belongs in the fabric and what belongs in software on an accompanying processor, and implementing the interface between them so the two halves work as one system
  • Honest scoping and a documented, maintainable design, legible HDL, real constraints, a verification suite and the design decisions written down, so the work survives the long life these systems have and does not become one engineer’s unmaintainable black box

What FPGA Design does for you

  • A performance ceiling that software cannot lift

    The reason to endure the cost of FPGA design is that it does something no amount of faster software or a bigger server can. A processor runs instructions in sequence; even with many cores it is fundamentally scheduling work through a small number of execution units. An FPGA is the computation, laid out in hardware, running in parallel every clock cycle. For the right workload that is not an incremental speed-up but a different order of behaviour: deterministic response measured in nanoseconds, throughput that keeps pace with a firehose of data, a fixed latency that never varies. When your requirement lives at that ceiling, an FPGA is the only tool that reaches it, and that is precisely when the discipline is worth its considerable cost.

  • Determinism you can rely on to the nanosecond

    Software running on a general-purpose operating system is fast on average and unpredictable at the edges. An interrupt, a cache miss, a scheduler decision, and the occasional response arrives far later than the typical one. For a great many applications that variability is fine. For some it is disqualifying: a control loop that must respond within a fixed window every cycle, a processing pipeline that cannot afford jitter, a system where the worst case matters more than the average. FPGA logic responds in the same number of clock cycles every time, by construction, because it is hardware rather than software competing for a processor. That determinism (the guarantee, not the average), is often the real reason a design ends up in the fabric.

  • Custom hardware that no off-the-shelf part provides

    Sometimes the requirement is not raw speed but shape. A hardware interface, protocol or piece of glue logic that simply does not exist as a chip you can buy. An FPGA lets you build exactly the digital hardware you need: a bespoke high-speed link, a non-standard sensor or instrument interface, custom logic sitting between other chips and adapting one to another. This is also why FPGAs are the natural home for prototyping a design destined for an ASIC: you can build, run and refine the actual hardware behaviour in reconfigurable logic before committing to a mask set that costs a fortune and cannot be changed. The flexibility to be precisely the hardware you need is a genuine capability that no software solution offers.

Why teams choose us for FPGA Design

  • We tell you honestly when you do not need an FPGA, when a GPU or a software path would meet your requirement more cheaply, because the most expensive FPGA project is the one that never needed to exist, and steering you away from it when it is wrong is worth more than selling you one that is
  • FPGA design is a genuinely separate specialism, and we treat it as one. HDL written by engineers who think in clocks, parallel data paths and timing constraints, not software developers reaching sideways into hardware and discovering that their instincts about sequence and memory do not apply
  • We treat verification and timing closure as first-class disciplines rather than final hurdles, because on an FPGA the gap between a design that simulates and one that works on silicon is where projects are lost, and closing that gap deliberately is most of the actual engineering
  • We design the hardware/software boundary deliberately, deciding what genuinely belongs in the fabric and what belongs in software on an accompanying processor, rather than forcing everything into logic, because over-engineering inside an FPGA is as real a mistake as reaching for one you did not need

What FPGA Design includes

The concrete pieces of work this covers, scoped to what your problem actually needs.

  • RTL design in VHDL, Verilog and SystemVerilog

    The core of the work is register-transfer-level design, describing the actual digital hardware in a hardware description language so that the FPGA becomes that circuit. We write VHDL, Verilog and SystemVerilog, chosen against your target, your toolchain and the team who will maintain the design rather than by preference. This is a mode of thinking distinct from software: you are laying out data paths, registers and parallel logic that all run every clock cycle, not writing a sequence of instructions, and the constraints that dominate (timing, fabric resources, clock domains), have no real equivalent in ordinary programming. We write HDL that is legible and maintainable, because these designs live for years and an unreadable one is a liability the whole time.

  • High-speed signal and image processing

    One of the most compelling homes for an FPGA is processing a high-rate stream of data as it arrives (radio and radar signals, sensor arrays, high-frame-rate or high-resolution imaging), where the data rate outruns what a processor can keep up with and the processing has to happen in real time without dropping samples. Filters, transforms and pipelines that a CPU would struggle to sustain map naturally onto parallel hardware, where each stage runs continuously and the whole pipeline keeps pace with the incoming firehose. This is signal and image processing at rates and latencies that are simply out of reach for software, which is exactly the kind of hard requirement that justifies the fabric.

  • Hardware acceleration and co-design

    Often the FPGA is not the whole system but an accelerator within it. A specific, well-chosen computation moved into the fabric because its parallelism pays there, sitting alongside a processor that handles everything else. The skill is in choosing the boundary: what genuinely belongs in hardware because it is hot, parallel and latency-critical, and what belongs in software because it is control-heavy, irregular or simply not on the critical path. We design that hardware/software split deliberately and build the interface between the two, because putting the wrong thing in the fabric wastes the effort and putting too much there is its own kind of over-engineering.

  • Ultra-low-latency and deterministic real-time systems

    Where the requirement is a latency floor or a determinism guarantee rather than throughput, the FPGA earns its place by responding in a fixed, tiny number of clock cycles every time. Low-latency financial trading is the well-known example: the path from market data in to an order out, compressed into microseconds or less, where the fabric is the only way to be fast and predictable enough. Deterministic real-time control is another: a loop that must respond within a fixed window every cycle with no jitter. We build for the worst case being met every time, which is the guarantee these systems actually need, rather than for a good average.

  • Custom interfaces, protocols and telecoms logic

    FPGAs are the natural place to build hardware that no off-the-shelf part provides: bespoke high-speed serial links, custom sensor and instrument interfaces, glue logic that adapts one chip to another, and the physical-layer and protocol work that telecommunications systems depend on. When you need a specific piece of digital hardware to exist and no chip you can buy is it, reconfigurable logic lets you build exactly that, and change it later, which a fixed-function chip cannot. This flexibility is a large part of why FPGAs sit at the heart of so much telecoms, instrumentation and custom-interface hardware.

  • ASIC prototyping and verification

    Before a design is committed to an ASIC. A fixed, custom chip whose fabrication costs a fortune and cannot be revised once the masks are cut: it is validated in an FPGA, where the actual hardware behaviour can be built, run and refined in reconfigurable logic. This lets a team exercise and correct a design against reality before the irreversible, expensive step of fabrication, catching the mistakes while they are still cheap to fix. We build and verify designs in this prototyping role, treating the FPGA as the proving ground where an ASIC-bound design earns confidence before it is set in silicon.

Where it fits

  • Real-time signal or image processing at rates software cannot sustain

    You have a high-rate stream (radio, radar, a sensor array, high-resolution or high-frame-rate imaging), arriving faster than a processor can keep up with, and it has to be filtered, transformed or analysed in real time without dropping any of it. We build the processing pipeline in the fabric, where each stage runs in parallel every clock cycle and the whole pipeline keeps pace with the incoming data. This is the classic case where the throughput requirement genuinely leaves no software answer, and an FPGA is not over-engineering but the only tool that does the job.

  • Ultra-low-latency trading or response paths

    You have a path where the time between an input arriving and an action going out is the whole point. A trading system where microseconds or less separate a filled order from a missed one, or another response path where the latency floor is a hard competitive or physical requirement. We implement the latency-critical logic in the fabric, where the response is a fixed, tiny number of clock cycles every time, because a software path on even a fast CPU carries scheduling and stack variability that this kind of requirement cannot tolerate.

  • A custom hardware interface or protocol that no chip provides

    You need a specific piece of digital hardware that does not exist to buy. A bespoke high-speed link, a non-standard sensor or instrument interface, glue logic adapting one chip to another, or a telecoms physical-layer function. We build exactly that logic in the FPGA, giving you hardware shaped precisely to the requirement and reconfigurable if the requirement moves, where a fixed-function part would either not exist or lock you in.

  • Proving a design in an FPGA before committing to an ASIC

    You are heading toward an ASIC (a custom chip whose fabrication is expensive and irreversible), and you need to validate the design against real hardware behaviour before the masks are cut. We build and verify the design in an FPGA as a prototype, so the logic can be exercised, corrected and trusted while changes are still cheap, rather than discovering a flaw after committing to a fabrication run that cannot be undone.

How we approach FPGA Design

We start by trying to talk you out of it. That is not a pose: it is the single most valuable thing an honest FPGA practitioner does, because the cost of putting a problem onto reconfigurable hardware is so high that it is only justified when nothing cheaper will meet the requirement. So the first work is establishing the requirement precisely: what is the actual latency budget, the actual throughput, the actual determinism you need, and can a modern CPU or a GPU meet it. If a GPU gives you the throughput for a fraction of the effort, or a well-written software path clears your latency floor, we will tell you to build that instead and we will explain why. An FPGA earns its place only when the numbers genuinely leave no other answer.

When the requirement is real, we treat the RTL design flow as the disciplined engineering process it has to be, because on an FPGA the distance between a design that simulates and a design that works on silicon at temperature and voltage is where projects are lost. That means verification built in step with the design rather than bolted on, timing closure treated as a first-class activity rather than a final scramble, and the hardware/software boundary decided deliberately: what goes into the fabric, what stays in software, and how the two communicate. We are candid throughout about the long iteration cycles, the expense and the specialism involved, because a client who understands why an FPGA change takes hours rather than seconds is a client who can make good decisions about scope. And because we operate what we build, the people making these calls are the ones who answer for a design that misses timing in the field.

The RTL design flow, from description to verified silicon

FPGA design follows a flow that is unlike software delivery and worth understanding, because its shape explains where the time and the risk actually sit. It begins with describing the logic in an HDL (the register-transfer-level design), and immediately with simulation, where testbenches exercise that logic against expected behaviour before it goes anywhere near hardware. Simulation is where the cheap bug-catching happens, and it is worth doing thoroughly, because every stage after it is slower and more expensive to debug in. We build the verification environment alongside the design rather than after it, so the logic is being tested continuously as it takes shape rather than validated in a rush at the end.

From a verified description the design is synthesised (turned from HDL into a netlist of actual logic elements), and then placed and routed, which maps that netlist onto the specific resources of the target FPGA and wires them together. These steps are slow: for a substantial design, synthesis and place-and-route can take hours, which is why FPGA iteration is measured in a handful of cycles a day rather than the rapid recompile-and-run of software. Then comes timing closure, the step that catches teams out: making the design actually meet its clock at the target frequency, which means writing correct timing constraints, analysing the critical paths the tools report, and reworking the logic until the timing is met reliably rather than met once and broken by the next change.

Only after the design meets timing does it go onto real hardware for on-target verification, where it runs against the real world at real voltage and temperature, because, exactly as with firmware, a design that has only ever simulated has not really run, and the awkward realities live in the gap between the model and the silicon. We are honest throughout that this flow is slow and demanding by nature: the long build times, the discipline of timing closure and the need to verify on hardware are not inefficiencies to optimise away but the intrinsic shape of the work, and a client who understands that shape makes far better decisions about scope and schedule than one who expects it to behave like software.

The design flow and the hardware/software boundary

The architecture of an FPGA project is decided along two axes. The first is the design flow itself and the structure it imposes: clock domains, data paths, pipelining and the resource budget of the target device. Unlike software, where you rarely think about the physical machine, FPGA design is constantly shaped by the fabric: how many logic elements, memory blocks and dedicated multipliers the device has, how many clock domains the design spans and how data crosses safely between them, and how deeply a pipeline must be staged to meet timing at the required rate. These are architectural decisions made early, because they are expensive to unwind once the design is built around them, and getting the pipelining and clocking structure right up front is much of what makes a design meet its timing later.

The second axis is the boundary between what runs in the fabric and what runs in software on an accompanying processor: the hardware/software co-design decision. Modern FPGA platforms frequently pair reconfigurable logic with one or more processor cores, and the central design question becomes what genuinely belongs on each side. The hot, parallel, latency-critical computation belongs in the fabric, where its parallelism pays. The control-heavy, irregular, configuration and coordination work belongs in software, where it is far easier to write and change. Drawing that line well is one of the most consequential decisions in the whole design, because putting control-flow-heavy logic into hardware makes it needlessly painful, and putting the latency-critical path into software throws away the reason you reached for an FPGA at all.

Getting that boundary right is also where the honesty about over-engineering applies inside the design, not just in the decision to use an FPGA in the first place. There is a temptation, having committed to the fabric, to put more into it than needs to be there, but every function moved into hardware that did not need the fabric’s parallelism is effort spent and flexibility lost for no gain. We keep in the logic only what genuinely requires it and design a clean, well-defined interface between the hardware and software halves, so the two work as one system and each part lives where it belongs. That discipline (minimal logic, deliberate boundary, clean interface), is what keeps an FPGA design maintainable over the long life these systems have.

Hardware-level security and bitstream protection

Security in FPGA design operates at a level most software engineers never touch, and it centres on the bitstream. The configuration file that defines the logic the FPGA becomes. That bitstream is, in effect, your design; anyone who can read it can clone your hardware, and anyone who can replace it can make the device do something else entirely. On many FPGAs the configuration lives in external memory and is loaded at power-on, which means an unprotected bitstream can be intercepted as it loads, copied, or substituted. So the first concern is bitstream protection: using the device’s encryption and authentication features so the configuration is stored and loaded encrypted, and so the FPGA verifies that the bitstream it is loading was signed by a key you control and refuses one that was not.

Beyond protecting the configuration, the logic you build in the fabric can itself be a security boundary, and where it is, it has to be designed as one. An FPGA implementing a custom interface, a cryptographic function or a trust-critical piece of a larger system is hardware that an attacker may probe, and the design has to account for that: validating input rather than trusting it, avoiding logic whose timing or behaviour leaks information it should not, and handling any secrets it holds using the device’s security features rather than leaving them exposed in fabric or memory. Hardware-level security is unforgiving in the same way firmware security is: the device is often physically accessible, and a design that assumed a friendly environment fails badly when it meets a hostile one.

We are candid that hardware security is a specialist area within an already specialist discipline, and that the right level of it depends entirely on the threat you actually face. A design whose value is in the IP of the logic itself needs bitstream protection so it cannot be cloned; a design that sits on a trust boundary needs its logic hardened against probing and its secrets protected; a design in a benign environment doing nothing sensitive may reasonably need little beyond the basics. We assess what your design genuinely requires and build to that, rather than either ignoring hardware security because it is unfamiliar or gold-plating it beyond what the threat justifies. The same honest calibration we apply to whether you needed the FPGA at all.

Signs it’s time

  • You have a hard latency requirement (measured in microseconds or nanoseconds), that software on even a fast CPU cannot meet, such as a trading path where the time between input and action is the whole competitive edge
  • You have a throughput requirement so high that no processor can keep up. A stream of high-rate sensor, radio or video data that has to be processed as it arrives, in real time, without dropping any of it
  • You need genuinely deterministic real-time behaviour, where a control or processing loop must respond within a fixed time every single cycle with no jitter, and a software system’s scheduling variability is unacceptable
  • You need a custom hardware interface or protocol. A bespoke high-speed link, a non-standard sensor or instrument interface, or glue logic between chips. That no off-the-shelf part provides, or you are prototyping a design ahead of an ASIC

When an FPGA is the wrong answer, and we will tell you

The most important thing to understand about how we work on FPGAs is that we spend real effort trying not to build one. This is not modesty; it is the direct consequence of the economics. An FPGA design is expensive, slow to develop, demanding to maintain and staffed by scarce specialists, so it is only justified when the requirement genuinely cannot be met any other way. For the large majority of computing problems it can be: a CPU is fast enough, or a GPU provides the parallel throughput far more cheaply and with a vastly gentler development path, or a well-written software implementation clears the latency budget with room to spare. In every one of those cases the FPGA is over-engineering, and choosing it would buy months of specialist work and a long-term maintenance burden in exchange for performance headroom you were never going to touch.

So we begin every FPGA conversation with the numbers, not the fabric. What is the actual latency budget, in real units. What is the actual throughput the system has to sustain. Is the requirement genuinely for determinism (the worst case met every time), or merely for a good average, which software delivers happily. Is there a custom hardware interface that truly has no off-the-shelf answer. Only when those numbers, examined honestly, leave no room for a CPU or a GPU does an FPGA become the right tool. When a GPU would give you the throughput, we will point you at the GPU and explain why it is the better, cheaper answer; when software would clear the bar, we will tell you to write the software. Losing an FPGA engagement we should not have taken is a far better outcome for you than delivering one you did not need.

When the requirement is real, though, and it genuinely is for a meaningful set of problems, the microsecond trading path, the sensor firehose, the deterministic control loop, the custom high-speed interface. An FPGA is not over-engineering at all but the only tool that does the job, and then we build it with the full discipline the domain demands: rigorous verification, serious timing closure, a deliberate hardware/software boundary and appropriate hardware security. Because we operate what we build, the engineers making these judgements are the ones who would have to answer for a design that misses timing or misbehaves in the field, which in a discipline this expensive and unforgiving is the strongest possible pressure to be honest about whether it should exist and rigorous about building it when it should.

Technologies we build it with

Chosen per problem, not per fashion. This is the stack we most often reach for on this work.

How we deliver

  1. 01

    Discover

    We map the system, the constraints and the business it serves, including the parts nobody documented.

    Architecture brief

  2. 02

    Architect

    Decisions get made, written down and defended before a line of production code exists.

    Decision records

  3. 03

    Build

    Short cycles against working software. You see progress in the product, not in a status deck.

    Shipping increments

  4. 04

    Operate

    Monitoring, incident response and iteration. The system is alive, so the engagement is too.

    Runbooks & SLOs

Want a straight answer on FPGA Design?

A short call with a senior engineer, before you write a brief. If FPGA Design is the wrong answer for your situation, we will say so and tell you what we think is right.

Book a consultationTalk to us

What changes

  • Performance software cannot reach

    Logic that runs in parallel in hardware, hitting a latency, throughput or determinism target that a CPU executing instructions in sequence structurally cannot meet. The microsecond you have to fit inside, or the gigabits per second you have to keep up with, delivered because the requirement genuinely needed it.

  • A design that meets timing and holds it

    Timing closure treated as its own discipline rather than a last-minute scramble, constraints written and defended, critical paths analysed, and the design made to meet its clock reliably across builds and conditions, so it works on the board and not just in the report.

  • The honest answer about whether you needed it

    Before any of the above, a straight assessment of whether an FPGA was the right tool at all, and if a GPU or a software path would meet your requirement more cheaply, you hear that instead of a quote, because the worst FPGA project is the one that never needed to exist.

Industries we serve

Domain knowledge changes what gets built. A few of the sectors we know before the first meeting.

How pricing works

  • The dominant driver is whether you need an FPGA at all, which is why the honest scoping conversation comes first and costs you nothing to have. If a GPU or a software path meets your requirement, the cheapest FPGA project is the one you never start, and we would rather tell you that than quote for work you should not commission. The pricing below applies only once a genuine hard requirement has established that reconfigurable hardware is the right tool.
  • Given that, the complexity of the logic is the largest factor. Simple glue logic or a modest interface is a very different undertaking from a deep signal-processing pipeline, an ultra-low-latency path where every clock cycle is fought over, or a design that spans many clock domains and pushes the resources of the device. The harder the timing closure the design demands (the closer it runs to the device’s limits), the more of the effort goes into meeting timing reliably rather than merely making the logic function, and that timing work is often the larger half of a demanding project.
  • Verification is a substantial and non-negotiable part of the cost, because on an FPGA the gap between a design that appears to work and one that genuinely does is wide, and closing it takes a real testbench and real on-hardware verification. A design whose failure would be expensive or dangerous justifies more verification than a benign one, and we scope that honestly rather than trimming the verification that is exactly what protects you from a design that passes once and fails in the field. Hardware security, where the threat warrants it (bitstream protection, hardened logic), is a further driver we call out explicitly.
  • The intrinsic slowness of the flow shapes the cost in a way worth stating plainly: long synthesis and place-and-route times mean iteration is measured in a few cycles a day, not the rapid loop of software, so the same amount of change takes more calendar time. We build for the long life these designs have (legible HDL, real constraints, a maintainable verification suite), because an FPGA design that was written only to work once becomes very expensive to keep alive, and these systems tend to live for years in demanding roles.

Typical timeline

  1. 01

    Requirement and feasibility: is an FPGA even the answer?

    Establishing the actual numbers: the real latency budget, the real throughput, whether the need is genuine determinism or a good average, whether a custom hardware interface truly has no off-the-shelf answer, and testing them honestly against what a CPU or a GPU could do. If a cheaper tool meets the requirement, this is where we tell you, before any hardware is described. Only a genuine hard requirement takes the project past this point.

  2. 02

    Architecture and RTL design

    Deciding the structure against the fabric and the requirement, clock domains and how data crosses them, pipelining depth, the resource budget of the target device, and the hardware/software boundary, then writing the register-transfer-level design in VHDL, Verilog or SystemVerilog. The architectural decisions made here are the ones that determine whether the design meets timing later, so they are made deliberately rather than discovered.

  3. 03

    Simulation, synthesis and timing closure

    Verifying the logic thoroughly in simulation where bugs are cheap to catch, then synthesising and placing-and-routing the design (the slow steps, measured in hours per build), and closing timing: writing constraints, analysing critical paths and reworking the logic until it meets its clock reliably rather than once. This is where much of the real engineering and much of the calendar time sits.

  4. 04

    On-hardware verification and handover

    Proving the design on the actual FPGA at real voltage and temperature, against the real-world conditions and awkward edge cases that simulation cannot fully reproduce, plus any bitstream protection or hardware-security measures the threat warrants, before handing over a design that meets its timing, is verified on silicon, and is documented and maintainable for the long life these systems have.

What working with us actually means

  • We tell you honestly when you do not need an FPGA

    The most valuable thing an FPGA specialist can do is often to steer you away from one, because the discipline is so expensive that it is only justified when nothing cheaper meets the requirement. If a GPU would give you the throughput more cheaply, or a software path would clear your latency budget, we will say so and point you there rather than sell you months of specialist effort you did not need. The worst FPGA project is the one that never needed to exist, and we would rather lose that engagement than deliver it.

  • FPGA specialists, not software developers reaching sideways

    Reconfigurable-hardware design is a genuinely separate discipline, and the failures come from treating it like software. Thinking in sequence rather than parallelism, ignoring timing until it bites, underestimating the flow’s slowness: these are the mistakes of people learning the domain on your problem. Our HDL is written by senior engineers who think natively in clocks, parallel data paths and timing constraints, so the trade-offs are made by people who know what actually bites in the fabric rather than what would work fine on a processor.

  • Verification and timing closure treated as first-class work

    On an FPGA the gap between a design that simulates and one that works on silicon at temperature is wide, and closing it is most of the real engineering. We build the verification environment alongside the design rather than bolting it on, and we treat timing closure as its own discipline, constraints written and defended, critical paths analysed, the design made to meet its clock reliably across builds and conditions, rather than as a final scramble that passes once and fails on the next change.

  • A deliberate boundary, and we operate what we build

    We design the hardware/software split deliberately, keeping in the fabric only what genuinely needs its parallelism and building a clean interface to the software half, because over-engineering inside an FPGA is as real a mistake as reaching for one you did not need. And because we operate what we build, the engineers making these judgements are the ones who would answer for a design that misses timing in the field, which in a discipline this expensive and unforgiving is the strongest pressure to build it right.

How to engage us

Three ways to work with us on this, chosen to fit the problem, not our margin.

Related services

Part of Digital Transformation. Other work we do alongside this.

Common questions

How do I know whether I actually need an FPGA rather than a CPU or a GPU?

You need one only when you have a hard requirement that software genuinely cannot meet. A latency floor in microseconds or nanoseconds, a throughput so high no processor keeps up, a determinism guarantee where the worst case must be met every cycle, or a custom hardware interface that no off-the-shelf part provides. For almost everything else, a CPU is fast enough or, for parallel workloads, a GPU delivers the throughput far more cheaply and with a vastly gentler development path than an FPGA. The honest test is the numbers: state your real latency and throughput budgets and whether you need determinism or merely a good average, and see whether a CPU or GPU clears them. If they do, an FPGA is over-engineering, and we will tell you so and point you at the cheaper tool. We start every engagement with exactly this conversation, and it costs you nothing to have it.

Why does FPGA development take so much longer than writing software?

It is intrinsic to how the flow works, not an inefficiency we can optimise away. In software you recompile and rerun in seconds. On an FPGA, a change goes through synthesis, then place-and-route: mapping the logic onto the physical resources of the device and wiring them together, and for a substantial design those steps can take hours per build, which means iteration is measured in a handful of cycles a day. On top of that sits timing closure, the discipline of making the design actually meet its clock reliably, which can take real effort to get right. And the design has to be verified on real hardware, because one that has only simulated has not truly run. This slowness is the shape of the work, and understanding it up front is part of scoping an FPGA project realistically rather than being surprised by it halfway through.

What is timing closure, and why does it matter so much?

Timing closure is the process of making the design actually meet its clock at the target frequency, ensuring that every signal has time to propagate through the logic and settle before the next clock edge captures it. It matters because a design can be logically correct, simulate perfectly, and still fail on silicon because a path is too slow to meet timing at the required rate, at which point the hardware simply produces wrong results or behaves unpredictably. Closing timing means writing correct timing constraints, analysing the critical paths the tools report, and reworking the logic (often adding pipeline stages or restructuring data paths), until the timing is met reliably across builds and conditions rather than met once and broken by the next change. On a demanding design, timing closure is frequently the larger half of the engineering effort, which is why we treat it as a first-class discipline rather than a final hurdle.

Which language do you use. VHDL, Verilog or SystemVerilog?

We work in all three and choose against your target device, your existing toolchain and codebase, and the team who will maintain the design, rather than by preference. VHDL and Verilog are both long-established hardware description languages with large existing codebases and strong tool support; SystemVerilog extends Verilog with features that are particularly valuable for verification. High-level synthesis, which generates hardware from a higher-level description, is increasingly capable and has a genuine place for some workloads, and we will use it where it earns its keep, but it is not a shortcut around understanding the hardware, and for latency- and timing-critical designs hand-written RTL still gives the control the requirement demands. The right choice depends on your specific design and constraints, and we make it on the merits rather than pushing whichever we happen to prefer.

How do you protect the design once it is deployed on hardware?

Security on an FPGA centres on the bitstream. The configuration file that defines the logic the FPGA becomes, which is in effect your design. Anyone who can read an unprotected bitstream can clone your hardware, and anyone who can replace it can make the device do something else. So where the threat warrants it we use the device’s encryption and authentication features, so the configuration is stored and loaded encrypted and the FPGA verifies it was signed by a key you control before running it. Beyond protecting the configuration, logic that sits on a trust boundary (a custom interface, a cryptographic function), is designed as a security boundary: validating input rather than trusting it, protecting any secrets using the device’s features, and accounting for an attacker who may physically probe the hardware. The right level depends entirely on the threat you actually face, and we assess that honestly and build to it rather than either ignoring hardware security because it is unfamiliar or gold-plating it beyond what the threat justifies.

Thinking about FPGA Design?

Tell us the problem in your own words, not in requirements. A senior engineer reads it and comes back with a straight view on whether FPGA Design is the right answer here, or what would be.

  1. 01A senior engineer reads it. Not a form queue, and not an account manager.
  2. 02We reply either with questions or with a straight answer that we are not the right fit.
  3. 03If it looks like a fit, a technical call with the person who would actually run the delivery.
  4. 04Then scope, effort and risk in writing, before anyone signs anything.
Or book a free consultationPick a time that suits you. No pitch, no obligation.Prefer email? support@yarqat.com

Two fields required. We reply to real enquiries. No list, no sequence.