Same math, three different silicon strategies. The choice comes down to flexibility, unit cost, and how many chips you need to make.
A chip built to do one thing. Custom silicon designed and taped out for a specific application: a Bitcoin miner, a network switch, Google's TPU, Apple's Neural Engine. Every transistor is placed intentionally for the target workload.
Pros: Highest possible performance-per-watt. Nothing wasted. Cheapest at scale (once the mask set is paid off).
Cons: Non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs of $10M-$100M+ to design and tape out. Can't be changed after fabrication. Only viable at volumes of ~10,000+ units.
A general-purpose parallel processor. Originally built for graphics, now dominant for AI and scientific computing. Fixed hardware, but programmable via CUDA or ROCm.
Pros: Off-the-shelf, buy today. Software-programmable. Enormous ecosystem (PyTorch, TensorFlow, CUDA).
Cons: Not optimal for any specific task — you're paying for general-purpose flexibility. Power-hungry compared to an ASIC doing the same work. Cost-per-op is 5-20× worse than a purpose-built ASIC.
A chip full of configurable logic blocks that you wire together at boot time. The hardware itself is reprogrammed to match your circuit — not just the software.
Pros: Reconfigurable in the field. Good for low-volume custom logic, prototyping, protocols that change (5G basestations), or workloads that need deterministic timing (finance, defense).
Cons: 10-100× slower and 10-30× less power-efficient than an ASIC doing the same job. Harder to program than a GPU (Verilog/VHDL/HLS). Expensive per unit.
New chips like Intel's Agilex or AMD's adaptive SoCs combine hard ASIC blocks (CPU cores, memory controllers) with FPGA fabric on the same package. Best of both worlds, at a premium price.