Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 141575

Article: 141575
Subject: Re: Expand unsigned 4*4 module to signed 16*16 module
From: Mike Treseler <mtreseler@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:53:52 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Weng Tianxiang wrote:

> Here it is a Xilinx invention about 4*4 module.

The topic of this newsgroup is vhdl.

   -- Mike Treseler



Article: 141576
Subject: Re: True dual-port RAM in VHDL: XST question
From: "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:07:21 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Mike Treseler" <mtreseler@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4A477373.8040406@gmail.com...
> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> Hmm - perhaps you're interfacing with an external IC.  Are you going to 
>> tell me you'd blindly write a testbench without confirming that your 
>> interface in real hardware is correctly understood?
>
> Standard interfaces are well documented.
> Certainly I have to verify a few things on the bench,
> but starting with a sim improves my odds.

It sounds we're really singing from the same hymn sheet, the difference is 
I'm more honest to say that simulation is sometimes no substitution for 
reality.

>
>> It's clear you've never got a PCI or PCIe interface working without 
>> resorting to the likes of chipscope, where reality doesn't even match 
>> signals as per standards.
>
> We purchased a PCIe core that came with a testbench.
> I just worked.
>

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I would hope the purchased core and 
test bench would work straight out of the box?



Article: 141577
Subject: FPGA / CPLD Group on LinkedIn -- Networking Group
From: cpld-fpga-asic <cpld.fpga.asic@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Group for People Involved In the Design and Verification of FPGA's,
other Programmable Logic , and CPLD's to Exchange Idea's and
Techniques. You should have FPGA / CPLD Design / Verification on your
Profile. (The focus is more on FPGA/CPLD in the product as opposed to
FPGA's solely as a path to an ASIC) VHDL / Verilog / ABLE / SystemC
and other HDL's as well. Vendors included: Xilinx, Altera, Actel,
Lattice, Atmel, QuickLogic, Tabula, Silicon Blue, Mentor, Cadence,
Synopsys, Aldec, NI, Altium, and Many Others.

Networking on LinkedIn can be a way to get technical questions
answered. It can also be a way to meet contacts with expertise in
other domains of knowledge other than your own. Additionally, many
career enhancing contacts, and mentors can potentially found
especially if one is at a smaller company that lacks the resources for
extensive internal networking.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=56713

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/fpgacpldgroup/


Article: 141578
Subject: Re: FPGA / CPLD Group on LinkedIn -- Networking Group
From: "Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com" <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 28, 5:09=A0pm, cpld-fpga-asic <cpld.fpga.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Group for People Involved In the Design and Verification of FPGA's,
> other Programmable Logic , and CPLD's to Exchange Idea's and
> Techniques. You should have FPGA / CPLD Design / Verification on your
> Profile. (The focus is more on FPGA/CPLD in the product as opposed to
> FPGA's solely as a path to an ASIC) VHDL / Verilog / ABLE / SystemC
> and other HDL's as well. Vendors included: Xilinx, Altera, Actel,
> Lattice, Atmel, QuickLogic, Tabula, Silicon Blue, Mentor, Cadence,
> Synopsys, Aldec, NI, Altium, and Many Others.
>
> Networking on LinkedIn can be a way to get technical questions
> answered. It can also be a way to meet contacts with expertise in
> other domains of knowledge other than your own. Additionally, many
> career enhancing contacts, and mentors can potentially found
> especially if one is at a smaller company that lacks the resources for
> extensive internal networking.
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=3D&gid=3D56713
>
> Website:https://sites.google.com/site/fpgacpldgroup/

could you describe the last technical FPGA related question
that your linkedin networking group solved?

unless you are able todo that, i see you repeated postings
to c.a.f. as complete spam

Antti





Article: 141579
Subject: Re: STA Problem on Asynchronous FIFO
From: Gael Paul <gael.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
vcar,

I suspect this cross-domain path is the "first-word fall-through"
path: when you write the first word in the -empty- FIFO, it
immediately becomes available on the read port. In such, this path is
real. (With two clocks running at 4ns and 3.75ns, the smallest
distance between two edges is indeed .250ns=A0in each direction)

However, as a designer, if you know that this will never be exercised,
you need to declare it as a false path. In your case, you probably
should declare false paths between the two clocks (two constraints to
cover each direction), which will cover all paths crossing from one
clock to the other.

- gael


Article: 141580
Subject: Re: 6/6 infos
From: Sean Durkin <news_MONTH@tuxroot.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:32:38 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com wrote:
> ok, here some comparison
> 
> S3-area optimize    1447 slices
> S3-speed optimize 1482 slices
> S6-area optimize     606  slices
> S6-speed optimize  557  slices !?
> 
> (only synthesis option changed)
> 
> the design tested is a known 32 bit processor,
> well Xilinx is defenetly enhancing the marketing-gate strategy
> the SLICE count is more then ever un-comparable
Can't that be a result of the 6-input-LUT that S6 now has?

Shouldn't make that much of a difference, but it should influence the
results at least a little. Doesn't explain why the speed optimized
version is smaller than the area-optimized one, though...

cu,
Sean

Article: 141581
Subject: Re: STA Problem on Asynchronous FIFO
From: Peter Alfke <alfke@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 28, 3:21=A0am, vcar <hi...@163.com> wrote:
> The FIFO(addr_cntrl_fifo_inst) has two completely irrelevant clocks,
> say Clock A(trn_clk_c) and Clock B(DDR2_CLK0). The frequency of Clock
> A is 250MHz(Period: 4ns), and Clock B is 266MHz(Period: 3.75ns). Now
> the problem comes when performing STA. The Timing Analyzer reports
> that:
>
> Slack: =A0-10.394ns (requirement - (data path - clock path skew +
> uncertainty))
> =A0 Source: addr_cntrl_fifo_inst/BU2/U0/grf.rf/mem/gdm.dm/Mram_RAM8_RAMC
> (RAM)
> =A0 Destination: addr_cntrl_fifo_inst/BU2/U0/grf.rf/mem/gdm.dm/dout_i_23
> (FF)
> =A0 Requirement: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0.250ns
> =A0 Data Path Delay: =A0 =A0 =A02.008ns (Levels of Logic =3D 0)
> =A0 Clock Path Skew: =A0 =A0 =A0-8.259ns (3.005 - 11.264)
> =A0 Source Clock: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0trn_clk_c rising at 56.000ns
> =A0 Destination Clock: =A0 =A0DDR2_CLK0 rising at 56.250ns
>
> For certain path crossing the different clock domains, the auto
> constraints turned out to be 0.25ns (4ns =96 3.75ns). This is impossible
> to achieve.
>
> What should I do to pass the STA?
The timing delay between the rising edges of 250 and 266 MHz is not
limited to 250 ps. (You got that false impression from the rounding
off to 3.75 ns) In reality, there is no lower limit at all, down to
the fractional femtoseconds. That is what makes the control of Full
and Empty flags so challenging.
Peter Alfke, Xilinx

Article: 141582
Subject: Re: Virtex-6 shipping?
From: Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:25:47 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:58:36 +0200, Dirk Koch <dirk.koch@cs.fau.de> wrote:

>Be careful with Avnet boards,
>We bought once Virtex-4 LX Evaluation Boards equipped with
>"engineering samples" that have dozens of "undocumented features"
>that are quite painful to figure out.
>That’s something for early adaptors but not really reliable for
>common use.

Methinks those interested in Virtex/Spartan 6 NOW
_do_ qualify as early adaptors :-)

regards, Gerhard

Article: 141583
Subject: Re: 6/6 infos
From: Kolja <ksulimma@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 28 Jun., 17:32, Sean Durkin <news_MO...@tuxroot.de> wrote:

> > S6-area optimize =A0 =A0 606 =A0slices
> > S6-speed optimize =A0557 =A0slices !?
 Doesn't explain why the speed optimized
> version is smaller than the area-optimized one, though...

Slice numbers are meaningless. 2 LUTs might end up in the same slice
or in two different slices during placement/retiming, etc. I might as
well
be that the area optimized version has less LUTs but they are placed
in more slices.
As soon as you add more logic to the device the packing will get
denser.

Kolja Sulimma

Article: 141584
Subject: Re: 6/6 infos
From: "Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com" <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 28, 11:27=A0pm, Kolja <ksuli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 28 Jun., 17:32, Sean Durkin <news_MO...@tuxroot.de> wrote:
>
> > > S6-area optimize =A0 =A0 606 =A0slices
> > > S6-speed optimize =A0557 =A0slices !?
>
> =A0Doesn't explain why the speed optimized
>
> > version is smaller than the area-optimized one, though...
>
> Slice numbers are meaningless. 2 LUTs might end up in the same slice
> or in two different slices during placement/retiming, etc. I might as
> well
> be that the area optimized version has less LUTs but they are placed
> in more slices.
> As soon as you add more logic to the device the packing will get
> denser.
>
> Kolja Sulimma

yes, it doesnt, that was the point, with the new Slices in S6
it is really just marketing gates how it is calculated the equivalent
luts (lut4)
and of course the slice packing is another story

still, in both cases the chip was mostly empty, so it gives some very
dumb comparison of what to expect, sure the picture can be different
for different design
well at least its clear the s3-s6 slice ration is more then just 2
because of wider lut

Antti






Article: 141585
Subject: Re: usefulness of Virtex-II devices
From: james <george@washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:45:04 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:25 -0700 (PDT),
"Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com" <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com> wrote:

|On Jun 28, 3:42 pm, CMOS <manusha1...@gmail.com> wrote:
|> hi,
|> im plannining to buy a vertex 2 based FPGA board. this is the link.
|>
|> http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Detail.cfm?NavPath=2,400,453&Prod...
|>
|> does this board worthy for the price of $299?
|>
|> CMOS
|
|absolutly, if you get it for $299!
|
|too bad Xilinx is no longer supporting Virtex-II with their ISE
|
|ISE 10.1 is the last version that offered V-II support,
|
|Antti
|==========

$299 is the acedemic pricing.

james

Article: 141586
Subject: Re: STA Problem on Asynchronous FIFO
From: Gael Paul <gael.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Peter,

I suspect the OP actually constrained his clocks in ns, rounding
266Mhz to 3.75ns. That would explain why the STA calculates a 250ps
distance (which is correct for 3.75ns and 4ns clocks).
If not, this would show a bug in STA since the distance (i.e.
"Requirement") between the clocks should then be 0 (after rounding).

The issue though lies in declaring these clocks as unrelated,
typically with false paths.

 - gael

Article: 141587
Subject: Re: STA Problem on Asynchronous FIFO
From: vcar <hitsx@163.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
There is the details information about my design for your better
understanding.

The async FIFO is common FIFO, not the first-word fall-through FIFO.

The Clock A and Clock B are generated by one clock source but from
different PLL/DCM. So ISE will auto relate the two clocks as related
clocks. All the signals in my design crossing clock A and clock B are
passing through async FIFO like the one I listed
(addr_cntrl_fifo_inst).

Since there is async FIFO which will handle the async clock domain
problem, I think my design should have two unrelated clocks, not the
related clocks. And all I need to do is to add false path on the
crossing paths between clock A & clock B. Am I right?


Article: 141588
Subject: Re: Expand unsigned 4*4 module to signed 16*16 module
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 27, 8:39=A0pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I want to expand unsigned 4*4 module to signed 16*16 module and cannot
> find any references.
>
> Who knows it please give me a help.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Weng

To use a multiplier module, you must consider the product output from
this module to be a partial product which is added to the other
partial products to form the complete product.  To do a 16x16 multiply
using 4x4 multiplier modules will require 16 of these modules.
Consider each 16 bit number to be composed of

a3*2**12 + a2*2**8 + a1*2**4 + a0 and b3*2**12 + b2*2**8 + b1*2**4 +
b0

Your partial products will be a0*b0 + a0*b1*2**4 + a1*b0*2**4 +
a1*b1*2**8 + ...

I think you can see where this is going.

Rick

Article: 141589
Subject: Re: Spartan3E or Cyclone III ?
From: John Adair <g1@enterpoint.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Sudhir

It's a matter of luck which works out cheaper for a given project.
Some designs will have a better fit in an Altera and some conversely
Xilinx. Pricing will also vary a lot if it's a "volume" project. On
the xilinx front it would also be worth considering the Spartan-3A or
Spartan-3A DSP. If your manufacturing doesn't start for 6 months or so
Spartan-6 will be a good option as well. Not to leave them out Altera
will no doubt be offering some competition to Spartan-6.

You can try a lot of these device out for fit in the fre versions of
ISE and Quartus respectively.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.- Home of Craignell. The DIL FPGA Solution.

On 27 June, 13:39, Sudhir Singh <Sudhir.Si...@email.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I am currently in the process for selecting an FPGA for one of my
> projects. I have always used Xilinx FPGAs but now am considering using
> Altera. The Altera Cyclone III FPGAs looks like a very cost effective
> device but I have no idea how well it compares performance wise (will
> be used for DSP application) to a Spartan3E.
> I would be very grateful if someone would be able to provide me few
> pros and cons of Cyclone III.
>
> Thanks
> Sudhir


Article: 141590
Subject: Re: True dual-port RAM in VHDL: XST question
From: Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley@MYCOMPANY.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:08:00 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:45:55 +0100, Jonathan Bromley wrote:

>I've encountered what seems to me
> to be a bug in XST

For anyone reading this thread in the future,
please note my correction... see the thread
  Dual-port RAM synthesis - AN APOLOGY to Xilinx
starting 28 June 2009.
-- 
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services

Doulos Ltd., 22 Market Place, Ringwood, BH24 1AW, UK
jonathan.bromley@MYCOMPANY.com
http://www.MYCOMPANY.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which 
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

Article: 141591
Subject: Re: STA Problem on Asynchronous FIFO
From: "Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com" <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 28, 10:34=A0pm, Peter Alfke <al...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 3:21=A0am, vcar <hi...@163.com> wrote:
>
> > The FIFO(addr_cntrl_fifo_inst) has two completely irrelevant clocks,
> > say Clock A(trn_clk_c) and Clock B(DDR2_CLK0). The frequency of Clock
> > A is 250MHz(Period: 4ns), and Clock B is 266MHz(Period: 3.75ns). Now
> > the problem comes when performing STA. The Timing Analyzer reports
> > that:
>
> > Slack: =A0-10.394ns (requirement - (data path - clock path skew +
> > uncertainty))
> > =A0 Source: addr_cntrl_fifo_inst/BU2/U0/grf.rf/mem/gdm.dm/Mram_RAM8_RAM=
C
> > (RAM)
> > =A0 Destination: addr_cntrl_fifo_inst/BU2/U0/grf.rf/mem/gdm.dm/dout_i_2=
3
> > (FF)
> > =A0 Requirement: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0.250ns
> > =A0 Data Path Delay: =A0 =A0 =A02.008ns (Levels of Logic =3D 0)
> > =A0 Clock Path Skew: =A0 =A0 =A0-8.259ns (3.005 - 11.264)
> > =A0 Source Clock: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0trn_clk_c rising at 56.000ns
> > =A0 Destination Clock: =A0 =A0DDR2_CLK0 rising at 56.250ns
>
> > For certain path crossing the different clock domains, the auto
> > constraints turned out to be 0.25ns (4ns =96 3.75ns). This is impossibl=
e
> > to achieve.
>
> > What should I do to pass the STA?
>
> The timing delay between the rising edges of 250 and 266 MHz is not
> limited to 250 ps. (You got that false impression from the rounding
> off to 3.75 ns) In reality, there is no lower limit at all, down to
> the fractional femtoseconds. That is what makes the control of Full
> and Empty flags so challenging.
> Peter Alfke, Xilinx

Hi Peter,

challenging does not mean "undoable" for Xilinx I hope?
because in one large project, there is again a showstopper
and it is now because of xilinx coregen FIFO flags do not
seem to work properly

unfortunatly adding chipscope to the FPGA design makes
the MPMC2 DDR2 memory to fail so the system debug
is not possible. Simulation the full design is also not possible
the client does not have centuries to wait for simulation results.

is it OK, to expect that ISE 10.1 SP3 coregen FIFO's work?

or do they all work just under ideal case scenario and actually
fail in each and every real design?

those fifos and the debugging isnt my task in that project
i was just asked to help out with DEBUGGING the coregen
FIFO's but we have hard time with that

Antti


Article: 141592
Subject: Re: STA Problem on Asynchronous FIFO
From: Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley@MYCOMPANY.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:45:26 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:48:33 -0700 (PDT), vcar <hitsx@163.com> wrote:

>Since there is async FIFO which will handle the async clock domain
>problem, I think my design should have two unrelated clocks, not the
>related clocks. And all I need to do is to add false path on the
>crossing paths between clock A & clock B. Am I right?

I think so.

If you tell the STA tool that the two clocks are unrelated
(different clock groups) then it should automatically cut
all paths between the two clock domains; there should be
no need to set false paths.

You DO need false paths if the two clocks really are 
related, so that some paths need to be timed, but your
FIFO (or whatever) removes the need for STA on 
certain paths between the two clock domains.

Which STA tool are you using?
-- 
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services

Doulos Ltd., 22 Market Place, Ringwood, BH24 1AW, UK
jonathan.bromley@MYCOMPANY.com
http://www.MYCOMPANY.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which 
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

Article: 141593
Subject: Re: usefulness of Virtex-II devices
From: "Jaime Andres Aranguren Cardona" <jaac@nospam-sanjaac.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:47:49 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Specvially if it is used for learning purposes, you will find it VERY useful 
and instructive. Good quality audio, video, networking, 2 PowerPCs, DDR 
module... quite a lof fun!

If you can only get the industrial pricing, I'd recommend you look for 
something V4, V5 or even better, V6 based. As well, if this is going top be 
used in a new product, V2Pro is maybe not the best thing you can find 
nowadays, there are way better other offerings in the market, not only from 
Xilinx, but from Altera, Lattice, etc.

-- 

Jaime Andres Aranguren C.
SanJaaC Electronics
Soluciones en DSP
www.sanjaac.com


"james" <george@washington.edu> escribió en el mensaje 
news:22pf4551mmkl7b7oemjotrpsv9cr0imhas@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:25 -0700 (PDT),
> "Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com" <Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> |On Jun 28, 3:42 pm, CMOS <manusha1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> |> hi,
> |> im plannining to buy a vertex 2 based FPGA board. this is the link.
> |>
> |> 
> http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Detail.cfm?NavPath=2,400,453&Prod...
> |>
> |> does this board worthy for the price of $299?
> |>
> |> CMOS
> |
> |absolutly, if you get it for $299!
> |
> |too bad Xilinx is no longer supporting Virtex-II with their ISE
> |
> |ISE 10.1 is the last version that offered V-II support,
> |
> |Antti
> |==========
>
> $299 is the acedemic pricing.
>
> james 



Article: 141594
Subject: Re: Spartan3E or Cyclone III ?
From: "Jaime Andres Aranguren Cardona" <jaac@nospam-sanjaac.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:49:29 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Also, you can better compare C3 to more "modern" offerings from Xilinx, like 
S3A(N) or S3A-DSP.

-- 

Jaime Andres Aranguren C.
SanJaaC Electronics
Soluciones en DSP
www.sanjaac.com


<Antti.Lukats@googlemail.com> escribió en el mensaje 
news:a30100b2-fd3c-421f-af7c-8c969316c04c@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 3:39 pm, Sudhir Singh <Sudhir.Si...@email.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I am currently in the process for selecting an FPGA for one of my
> projects. I have always used Xilinx FPGAs but now am considering using
> Altera. The Altera Cyclone III FPGAs looks like a very cost effective
> device but I have no idea how well it compares performance wise (will
> be used for DSP application) to a Spartan3E.
> I would be very grateful if someone would be able to provide me few
> pros and cons of Cyclone III.
>
> Thanks
> Sudhir

it is matter of taste and preferences

but if you compara S3E and C-III
i see no reasons not to prefer C-III
but as said its a question of taste, or possible corporate policy

I would recommend C-III over S3E

but my most argument is SPI multiboot capability
C-III has it, S3E doesnt

of course the amount of BRAM too smallest device
CIII has 46 compared to 8K in S3E

Antti 



Article: 141595
Subject: Re: Spartan3E or Cyclone III ?
From: Sudhir Singh <Sudhir.Singh@email.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Guys,
Thanks for your replies.

John, its interesting that you suggested Spartan-3A DSP and Spartan-6
coz I had enquired with a distributor about these two devices just
today. Hopefully Spartan-3A DSP will have a good pricing.
We have to have the boards fabricated in 4 months time so Spartan-6
may be no-goer at this stage.

I didn't realise that CIII's LUTs can not be configured as distributed
memory.

Cheers
Sudhir

Article: 141596
Subject: Re: Virtex 5 Block Ram usage with Coregen FIFO
From: stripline <petrone3000@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 28, 5:56=A0am, "maxascent" <maxasc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> It will depend on the configuration of the din and dout ports to how many
> block rams coregen will use. Have a look at the V5 libraries guide to see
> how a bram can be configured.
>
> Jon

It appears that coregen counts the block rams in Virtex 4 block ram
sizes (so it shows double what it really is for a Virtex 5).
The .xrpt output file lists XST_RAMS as 4 as expected.  I will verify
in par but I believe this is the source of my confusion.

Joe

Article: 141597
Subject: Re: usefulness of Virtex-II devices
From: radarman <jshamlet@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 28, 4:45=A0pm, james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:25 -0700 (PDT),
>
> "Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com" <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> |On Jun 28, 3:42=A0pm, CMOS <manusha1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> |> hi,
> |> im plannining to buy a vertex 2 based FPGA board. this is the link.
> |>
> |>http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Detail.cfm?NavPath=3D2,400,453&Prod=
...
> |>
> |> does this board worthy for the price of $299?
> |>
> |> CMOS
> |
> |absolutly, if you get it for $299!
> |
> |too bad Xilinx is no longer supporting Virtex-II with their ISE
> |
> |ISE 10.1 is the last version that offered V-II support,
> |
> |Antti
> |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> $299 is the acedemic pricing.
>
> james

I really wish more companies didn't specifically target "academic",
and would offer a more broad "non-industrial" price. I'm not in
college anymore, but I still try to keep my skills honed at home -
thus, I don't have a student ID, but I still consider myself to be a
"student".

Article: 141598
Subject: Re: FPGA / CPLD Group on LinkedIn -- Networking Group
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 28, 10:52=A0am, "Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com"
<Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 5:09=A0pm, cpld-fpga-asic <cpld.fpga.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Group for People Involved In the Design and Verification of FPGA's,
> > other Programmable Logic , and CPLD's to Exchange Idea's and
> > Techniques. You should have FPGA / CPLD Design / Verification on your
> > Profile. (The focus is more on FPGA/CPLD in the product as opposed to
> > FPGA's solely as a path to an ASIC) VHDL / Verilog / ABLE / SystemC
> > and other HDL's as well. Vendors included: Xilinx, Altera, Actel,
> > Lattice, Atmel, QuickLogic, Tabula, Silicon Blue, Mentor, Cadence,
> > Synopsys, Aldec, NI, Altium, and Many Others.
>
> > Networking on LinkedIn can be a way to get technical questions
> > answered. It can also be a way to meet contacts with expertise in
> > other domains of knowledge other than your own. Additionally, many
> > career enhancing contacts, and mentors can potentially found
> > especially if one is at a smaller company that lacks the resources for
> > extensive internal networking.
>
> >http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=3D&gid=3D56713
>
> > Website:https://sites.google.com/site/fpgacpldgroup/
>
> could you describe the last technical FPGA related question
> that your linkedin networking group solved?
>
> unless you are able todo that, i see you repeated postings
> to c.a.f. as complete spam
>
> Antti

Hi, I am one of the moderators at this group and I must be honest
about it.  It is not a very technically oriented group.  I have tried
to make some technically oriented posts there with few responses.
This did not seem to stimulate much in the way of subsequent new
topics either.  I have also made an effort to separate the technical
content from the recruiting content and gotten feedback that the
recruiters are the ones paying the way for LinkedIn and cutting them
out would be a mistake.

So I have given up on this group as well as other FPGA related groups
at LinkedIn.  I have not removed myself from membership, but I can't
say I recommend them unless you wish to use it for employment or self
promotion.

Rick

Article: 141599
Subject: Re: usefulness of Virtex-II devices
From: gabor <gabor@alacron.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Jun 29, 10:35=A0am, radarman <jsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:45=A0pm, james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:25 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > "Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com" <Antti.Luk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > |On Jun 28, 3:42=A0pm, CMOS <manusha1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > |> hi,
> > |> im plannining to buy a vertex 2 based FPGA board. this is the link.
> > |>
> > |>http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Detail.cfm?NavPath=3D2,400,453&Pr=
od...
> > |>
> > |> does this board worthy for the price of $299?
> > |>
> > |> CMOS
> > |
> > |absolutly, if you get it for $299!
> > |
> > |too bad Xilinx is no longer supporting Virtex-II with their ISE
> > |
> > |ISE 10.1 is the last version that offered V-II support,
> > |
> > |Antti
> > |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > $299 is the acedemic pricing.
>
> > james
>
> I really wish more companies didn't specifically target "academic",
> and would offer a more broad "non-industrial" price. I'm not in
> college anymore, but I still try to keep my skills honed at home -
> thus, I don't have a student ID, but I still consider myself to be a
> "student".

My previous employer had an "industry discount" which applied
to pretty much anyone non-academic.  The reason was that
academic institutions tended to require more product support.
So in effect the educational institutions were the only ones
paying full price.  Of course our products were esoteric
enough at the time that we didn't expect the academic users
to design us in when they left school...

Regards,
Gabor



Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search