With respect to ASIC design styles, full-custom integrated circuits can typically achieve which combination of performance and silicon area?

Introduction / Context:
ASIC methodologies range from standard-cell and gate-array to full-custom. Full-custom gives designers fine-grained control over transistors, layout, and interconnect to maximize performance, but it carries cost/area trade-offs.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• We compare speed (performance) and die area (resource usage).
• Full-custom implies manual, transistor-level layout optimization.

Concept / Approach:
Full-custom chips achieve the highest speed by tailoring device sizes, routing paths, and analog-aware geometries. However, such bespoke layout typically consumes more engineering effort and silicon area relative to automated flows. Thus the realistic pairing is “highest speed, largest die area.” Competing answers that claim both highest speed and smallest area ignore practical overheads and design margining common in full-custom practice.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify the design style → full-custom (hand-optimized).Relate optimization to speed → highest potential performance.Relate layout practices to area → usually larger area due to custom devices, guard rings, tailored routing.

Verification / Alternative check:
VLSI design texts note that while standard-cell emphasizes density and productivity, full-custom prioritizes performance (and sometimes analog behavior), often at increased area and cost.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Lowest speed” options contradict the purpose of full-custom. “Highest speed, smallest die area” is overly optimistic and atypical for broad digital designs.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming optimization automatically reduces area; in reality, sizing devices for speed, adding shielding, and using non-minimum geometries tends to increase area.

Final Answer:
highest speed, largest die area