Custom Search
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
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
Hi I think I can confirm that V4 silicon is breaking the 1GHz barrier in the main FPGA fabric, as I did measure clock actual speeds of 952MHz in lowest speed grade V4-LX25. Faster speed grades would defenetly run over 1GHz. Sure there isnt much that can be done at those internal clock rates, but at least some flip-flops can toggle at that rate. What is already pretty amazing. FAST! but be aware not all internal circuitry speeds are scaled similarly in V4 - LUT4 propagation delay as example is MUCH faster than in S3, but the minimum clock low/high times are almost the same as in S3. AnttiArticle: 87176
I am sorry that you did not get a quote from any distributor. I usually stay out of such issues, but here is some help: Single quantity LX15 in SF363 package used to be around $ 125 LX 25 was around $ 200. For reasonable quantities and a few months out, I think the price will be half those numbers. For really large quantitities and even further out it might be cut in half again. Just my guess, based on a few decades of experience... This is a public newsgroup, and I don't want to contradict our marketing and sales folks. Peter AlfkeArticle: 87177
Peter, First, thank for very much for the answer. Yeah, I understand that giving V4 1-2 more years on the market will result in something like 20%-30% or more price reduction and yet giving birth to Spartan-4-like family of cost-reducted V4 FPGAs, but... we need them yesterday :o() as always Anyway, thanks again, appreciate it a lot. Vladislav "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote in message news:1121711124.732297.69260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >I am sorry that you did not get a quote from any distributor. > I usually stay out of such issues, but here is some help: > Single quantity LX15 in SF363 package used to be around $ 125 > LX 25 was around $ 200. > > For reasonable quantities and a few months out, I think the price will > be half those numbers. > For really large quantitities and even further out it might be cut in > half again. > Just my guess, based on a few decades of experience... > This is a public newsgroup, and I don't want to contradict our > marketing and sales folks. > Peter Alfke >Article: 87178
i m look for a sample for virtex4 fx12 from avnet there are 3 week, i'm trying to make a flickering led on my board, an nothing. I'm using ise 7 all sample from avnet are microblaze ou power pc May be if y found a sample in vhdl/verilog/shematic to virtex4 i understand why my design are false Thank's François Rigaud --------------= Posted using GrabIt =---------------- ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =--------- -= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-Article: 87179
Antti, Well, the secret is out. Yes, V4 is darn fast. We have seen the DSP48 filters running at > 1 GHz clock rate (and working fine). Even some amount of fabric runs this fast. Don't expect everything to work together at those rates, however (e.g. DCM, PPC, EMAC...). I would suppose that for some real hotshots out there, who wanted to get the fastest possible performance, they could design, characterize, and test an application running in these stratospheric ranges. But, they would be on their own, as they would have to closely regulate the temperature and voltage to keep these working (we just do not verify, characterize, nor specify it there). I prefer to use my Intel Pentium IV where is was designed to work, and not overclock it. In the same way, you can get really impressive performance from the V4, but we don't test it there. Similar, are folks who want really low power, and run V4 at 1.0 volts (+/- 5%). They get 44% less dynamic power, and less than 1/2 the static power, but it runs probably at 1/3 the max clock rates. How many folks out there would like to buy a super low power version of V4? We could test to a special screen program for 1 V operation. Let me know...if no one wants it, we are unlikey to do anything. But if there is business out there, we'd like to be your supplier of choice! In my past lives, I have designed product that was used where the manufacturer didn't specify, and yes, I was on my own, but with careful engineering, the products worked great. I don't see that much anymore, as engineers have become "risk adverse" in many areas (as they have become very "jobless adverse"). Of course, no risk, no reward. So, those who never take any risks are most likely to also never really get anywhere. Austin Antti Lukats wrote: > Hi > > I think I can confirm that V4 silicon is breaking the 1GHz barrier in the > main FPGA fabric, as I did measure clock actual speeds of 952MHz in lowest > speed grade V4-LX25. Faster speed grades would defenetly run over 1GHz. Sure > there isnt much that can be done at those internal clock rates, but at least > some flip-flops can toggle at that rate. What is already pretty amazing. > > FAST! but be aware not all internal circuitry speeds are scaled similarly in > V4 - LUT4 propagation delay as example is MUCH faster than in S3, but the > minimum clock low/high times are almost the same as in S3. > > AnttiArticle: 87180
The blinking red LED is normal--as the manual indicates it means there is no System-ACE card inserted. Since you don't have a CompactFlash card, I'm not sure what your problem is. I have an older USB controller in my laptop and get that warning as well. You do need to upgrade to XP Service Pack 1: http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_ans_display.jsp?iLanguageID=1&iCountryID=1&getPagePath=20429 The "Using Base System Builder" Quickstart at http://www.xilinx.com/univ/xupv2p.html has info on just how to create such a "Hello World" SoC design. Paul elinore2005@yahoo.fr wrote: > > Hi > > Here purchased a XUP VIIpro board (Digilent) today and trying a test > with no success :) > I am using EDK / ISE 6.3i with latest software update, Windows XP > laptop PC. > > It seems to have two problems. > > First, when I first power-on, 'SYSTEM ACE' LED blinks in red, meaning > something is wrong. > > According to the hardware manual ug069, " JTAG configuration is by > default from the Compact Flash. If a JTAG-based configuration is > selected and a valid configuartion file is not found on the Comppact > Flash card, the SYSTEM ACE ERROR LED flashes. " > > One thing is that I do not have a Flash card !! -: > It seems that I need to change jumpers or switches (i am not sure), but > no idea how to manage this. > > Second, when I first USB-connected between PC and the board, Windows > machine automatically tried to find a device driver. Then something > popped up saying " Hi speed USB device plugged into non-hi speed USB > hub. ....will function at reduced speed ". > > Still I am not sure if those 2 problems are really problems -: > Anyway when I run 'hyperterminal' (with correct setting - 9600baud, > 8data bits, No Parity, 1 Stop bit and No flow control), nothing appears > in hyperterminal. So it should be something wrong. > > My goal is to configure using USB cable without Flash card and run > 'hello world' with microblaze :) > If someone has this experience (especially with XUP board), let me know > how to shoot trouble. > > Thankyou in advanceArticle: 87181
Why can I not purchase a PCI board with a Spartan3, some SRAM, and a DRAM slot for $200? That's way more than the cost of the parts. Heck, with Xilinx's recent anouncements about 3rd party PCI-Express support I should be able to get that interface for the same price. What I'm picturing is general coprocessing. Nobody seems to think FPGAs are valuable for everyday coprocessing if you judge by the boards being made. Cray, Starbridge, SGI, Nallatech, and others recognize the value in coprocessing but they are targeting the HPCS market. It's the wrong market. All the other PCI boards I've seen lately are made for prototyping or DSP processing, especially in the sub $5k range. A simple Spartan3-based board for coprocessing could change the world. Video game companies could ship neural net modules, math companies could ship libraries that use it for acceleration, CAD and imaging companies could take advantage of it for acceleration, etc; for that to happen, everybody needs one. For that to happen, they have to be as cheap as a decent graphics card and compilers for them must be as cheap as GNU gcc. And they don't need a freakin' serial port, ethernet port, parallel port, USB port, half a dozen different RAM ports, proprietary connectors, and the kitchen sink for prototyping! How are we going to get there and why are we not there already?Article: 87182
"Brannon" <brannonking@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1121715486.789777.277650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Why can I not purchase a PCI board with a Spartan3, some SRAM, and a > DRAM slot for $200? That's way more than the cost of the parts. Heck, > with Xilinx's recent anouncements about 3rd party PCI-Express support I > should be able to get that interface for the same price. What I'm > picturing is general coprocessing. Nobody seems to think FPGAs are > valuable for everyday coprocessing if you judge by the boards being > made. Cray, Starbridge, SGI, Nallatech, and others recognize the value > in coprocessing but they are targeting the HPCS market. It's the wrong > market. All the other PCI boards I've seen lately are made for > prototyping or DSP processing, especially in the sub $5k range. A > simple Spartan3-based board for coprocessing could change the world. > Video game companies could ship neural net modules, math companies > could ship libraries that use it for acceleration, CAD and imaging > companies could take advantage of it for acceleration, etc; for that to > happen, everybody needs one. For that to happen, they have to be as > cheap as a decent graphics card and compilers for them must be as cheap > as GNU gcc. And they don't need a freakin' serial port, ethernet port, > parallel port, USB port, half a dozen different RAM ports, proprietary > connectors, and the kitchen sink for prototyping! How are we going to > get there and why are we not there already? > changing the world huh? challenging is it not? the board you wish isnt there, either somethign missing or something too much. I would say it makes MUCH more sense to get it done with PCIe - hmmm as my last inquiry the Avnets Spartan-3 + PCIe evaluation kit was supposed to be available end of June - but I havent asked about it for some while maybe its even out already. there are some cheap Lattice EC boards with DIMM sockets, but also a little above the 200$ range humm the PCIe board could actually be CHEAPER than the PCI board - smaller and no need for those 5V translators :) AnttiArticle: 87183
Hi Antti, > > humm the PCIe board could actually be CHEAPER than the PCI board - smaller > and no need for those 5V translators :) True... ... but I'd first have to shell out $500 for a new mobo, CPU and memory. Hmmm... how to get budget for that... BenArticle: 87184
Yes, it does. AustinArticle: 87185
"Brannon" <brannonking@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121715486.789777.277650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Why can I not purchase a PCI board with a Spartan3, some SRAM, and a > DRAM slot for $200? Because, given the low demands for boards like that, it costs a lot more than $200 once you factor in the time needed for someone to design & debug that board. You might expect Xilinx to do this -- many semiconductor sell evaluation boards at what's effectively "giveaway" prices in that they lose money on the sale, but figure they'll make it up in sales of the actual part -- but unfortunately Xilinx doesn't (at present). > That's way more than the cost of the parts. Costs of parts is an incredibly small factor in determining sales price in many products. > A > simple Spartan3-based board for coprocessing could change the world. > Video game companies could ship neural net modules, math companies > could ship libraries that use it for acceleration, CAD and imaging > companies could take advantage of it for acceleration, etc; for that to > happen, everybody needs one. You need a lot more than a simple evaluation board to get all those companies to adopt your co-processing model -- you also need large, sophisticated libraries that help programmers make use of the co-processing features. And keep in mind some of the main downfalls of any hardware based co-processor: It's a given that Intel, AMD, etc. will crack out faster and faster processors every year, so your specialized hardware ends up having to be re-designed regularly to continue to keep its "edge" -- this is an on-going expense (Patterson & Hennessy, in their Computer Architecture book, talk about how IBM once had a hard drive with a specialized co-processor to perform text string searches, but that over time as CPUs became faster and the specialized hardware remained the same, eventually it became slower to use that specialized hardware than to just burn CPUs cycles to perform the search. Similarly, by the time the Commodore Amiga computers were running 25MHz 68030 CPUs, it had become faster to use the CPU to perform some graphical functions such as text scrolling than to use the old Blitter graphics co-processor running at 7.14MHz). If your application really DOES catch on, it'll just be designed into a custom chip or made part of a CPU anyway -- witness Intel's MMX instructions and the proponderence of WinModems today, look at how graphics cards now have "GPUs" that are often on par in sophistication with general purpose CPUs, notice how the better sound cards have on-board ASICs containing lots of DSP hardware, etc. So... all I'm really saying is that, while there certainly are applications for "general purpose" co-processing, any application of such technology that's particularly successful will just be moved into an ASIC where far more people will benefit from lower price, lower power consumption, etc. anyway. > How are we going to > get there and why are we not there already? How about if you put in your own time and effort to design such a card and its corresponding software (as an "open source" hardware project) and they start selling the boards for $200? Many people here would probably buy one! :-) ---Joel KolstadArticle: 87186
Let me put my tutorial hat on: Virtex-4 pins should not see a voltage significantly more positive than 4 V, because that would overstress the thin gate oxide in some transistors. As a means to avoid damage from electro-static discharge, there is a diode between each pin and its Vcc supply connection, preventing the pin from going more positive than Vcco + 0.7 V. If you drive the pin with a voltage >4 V, this diode gets forward-biased and will conduct tens of milliamps (provided Vcco is 3.3 V, which it should be if you want to be 5-V tolerant.) Now you need something to limit the current that the 5-V output drives into the protection diode, and through it into the 3.3-V supply. Limiting it to <10 mA is a good idea. A resistor comes in handy. The accuracy of that resistor is irrelevant. A higher value would slow down the signal, since the pin represents a capacitive load. If speed is not an issue, use 1 kilohm. But remember that this resistor might also be in the way when the FPGA pin is an output. With an even higher resistor, the voltage tolerance goes up. With a 10 kilom (1W!) resistor, it becomes 100-V tolerant, if anybody would care. :-) This is really Basic Electricity 101. Peter AlfkeArticle: 87187
greenplanet wrote: > Thanks for your reply, Jeremy! np. > I was using Xilinx Spartan 2E 200 on Digilent D2Sb with DIO4 extension > board. I'm driving the line to 'Z' not to '1'. However, after probing > the PS/2 port (6 pin mini-DIN)on the board without attaching a mouse, I > found that the data and clk stay at '0' always (according to the > schematic from Digilent, there is no pull up circuit on both PS/2 data > and clk lines). When I probe the corresponding fpga pins, they work as > I programmed (logic 1 = 3.3V, logic 0 ~0V). Seems like the fpga > couldn't take control of the port! !? Sounds a touch odd. If the pins are connected to the PS/2 port, then you would expect the port and the pins to be the same. If you take the PS/2 port as the reference, then it would perhaps be a case of enabling the pullup resistors in the IOB (xc_pullup attribute for synplify - the xilinx attribute is PULLUP (from memory))). This wouldn't explain your original problem though. Guess you need to find out why the pins and the port don't match :) The other point of course, is that you state that the protocol uses 5V - but you're driving 3.3V? > I will try to use another board (XESS XSA3S1000 with Xstend V3.0) and > see if this happens. JeremyArticle: 87188
I'm just about to start a small ML401 design,and am not sure if I should use EDK 6.3 or EDK 7.1. Has anyone (Antti?) been able to get the reference design working with 7.1, or should I stick to 6.3? ThanksArticle: 87189
Hi Xilinx offers different IP cores for ethernet. like opb_ethernet, plb_ethernet, plb_temac, plb_gemac, ll_temac, ll_gemac, etc. Which of those IPs can be used to have a gigabit MAC using Microblaze processor. Recently EDK servicepack 3 has been released and there is a plb_temac but I could not find the posibilty to use it with microblaze processor. And there is a 1-Gigabit MAC available and was used in GSRD design but its also for PowerPC processor. I want to have gigabit ethernet to be used with microblaze either with hard/soft TEMAC or with gigabit soft core. Where can find the performance differnces between these two. The distinction between microblaze and powerPC use for different EMAC cores is really appreciated. regards RajeshArticle: 87190
Pete Fraser wrote: > I'm just about to start a small ML401 design,and am not > sure if I should use EDK 6.3 or EDK 7.1. > > Has anyone (Antti?) been able to get the reference design > working with 7.1, or should I stick to 6.3? We've been working with the ML401 on EDK6.3 for a few months now, and apart from some minor glitches it mostly works OK. Make sure you read Xilinx solution record 20060 about XMD_LX and updated opb_mdm core, if you want to do MicroBlaze hardware debugging. I installed EDK7.1-SP2 the other day, but haven't had a chance to try it yet. I did notice an updated ML401 reference design on xilinx.com, so presumably that should build out of the box. One thing I did see, the newest XBD files (for Base System Builder) for the ML401 don't contain any timing constraints on the DDR nets and pins. So, it seems unlikely that any BSB projects targetting the ML401 will work with DDR. One of our students is checking this out, hopefully we'll know for sure in a day or two. Cheers, JohnArticle: 87191
Hello all,
I am working on a ARM development board. I am modifting its system
FPGA which controls the peripherals. A signal output from the fpga is
now in the high impedance stete from the fpga and is pulled up with a
10k resistor. VCC is 3.3V. Another signal is pulled down to gnd using a
4.7K resistor. is it possible to drive these signals from the FPGA. if
yes what is the necessary modifications to be done in the ucf file
(about the drive strength, pad type etc). i tried with
LVTTL,PULLEDUP,Drive strength 12. But the value didnot changed. I
working with a Xilinx VirtexE FPGA. Please advice me on this issue.
Sumesh
Article: 87192"vssumesh" <vssumesh_asic@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1121753487.138517.30330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hello all, > I am working on a ARM development board. I am modifting its system > FPGA which controls the peripherals. A signal output from the fpga is > now in the high impedance stete from the fpga and is pulled up with a > 10k resistor. VCC is 3.3V. Another signal is pulled down to gnd using a > 4.7K resistor. is it possible to drive these signals from the FPGA. if > yes what is the necessary modifications to be done in the ucf file > (about the drive strength, pad type etc). i tried with > LVTTL,PULLEDUP,Drive strength 12. But the value didnot changed. I > working with a Xilinx VirtexE FPGA. Please advice me on this issue. > Sumesh > yes, it is possible. you need some meaningful and useful design into FPGA. nobody else except you know what you want to implement so nobody can help with that. as long as FPGA output is not driving the value on those pins will remain controlled by those ext. pullup pulldown resistors as the FPGA pullup/down resistors are very large nominal comparing to 10Kohms. AnttiArticle: 87193
<elinore2005@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:1121692247.873313.136410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi > > Here purchased a XUP VIIpro board (Digilent) today and trying a test > with no success :) > I am using EDK / ISE 6.3i with latest software update, Windows XP > laptop PC. > > It seems to have two problems. > > First, when I first power-on, 'SYSTEM ACE' LED blinks in red, meaning > something is wrong. No , just means you don't have a compact flash card plugged in. > According to the hardware manual ug069, " JTAG configuration is by > default from the Compact Flash. If a JTAG-based configuration is > selected and a valid configuartion file is not found on the Comppact > Flash card, the SYSTEM ACE ERROR LED flashes. " > > One thing is that I do not have a Flash card !! -: > It seems that I need to change jumpers or switches (i am not sure), but > no idea how to manage this. Read the user/reference manual available here http://www.digilentinc.com/info/XUPV2P.cfm or http://www.xilinx.com/univ/xupv2p.html > > Second, when I first USB-connected between PC and the board, Windows > machine automatically tried to find a device driver. Then something > popped up saying " Hi speed USB device plugged into non-hi speed USB > hub. ....will function at reduced speed ". > > Still I am not sure if those 2 problems are really problems -: They are not problems. Standard annoying windows message when you plug a high speed(up to 480Mbps) usb device into a low speed(1Mbps) or full speed (12Mbps) port. > Anyway when I run 'hyperterminal' (with correct setting - 9600baud, > 8data bits, No Parity, 1 Stop bit and No flow control), nothing appears > in hyperterminal. So it should be something wrong. Using a standard serial cable ? > My goal is to configure using USB cable without Flash card and run > 'hello world' with microblaze :) > If someone has this experience (especially with XUP board), let me know > how to shoot trouble. > > Thankyou in advance Worked straight out of the box without problems here. other than the memory test - due to not having a supported dimm - tried to use a dual bank 256MB. Haven't had time to build a microblaze project yet. Hopefully some time this week , I also want to give uclinux and linux a whirl. http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux/Downloads/platforms.html Try setting switch9 on to sw9-1 up (on) and up (on) that'll give you the goldern (builtin) config. AlexArticle: 87194
"Pete Fraser" <pfraser@covad.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:11dod73k02gui25@news.supernews.com... > I'm just about to start a small ML401 design,and am not > sure if I should use EDK 6.3 or EDK 7.1. > > Has anyone (Antti?) been able to get the reference design > working with 7.1, or should I stick to 6.3? > > Thanks > > Hi Pete, me no - I do not happen to own any Xilinx developed Xilinx boards :( only vendor boards. as of 7.1 - I would say go ahead, the issues I had are rather corner cases 1) XMD 7.1 SP1 + USB Cable + V4 combination does not work, possible fixed in EDK SP2 2) trouble with Microblaze 4.0, had to downgrade to 3.0 but otherwise the migration to 7.1 was rather painless AnttiArticle: 87195
"Brannon" <brannonking@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121715486.789777.277650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Why can I not purchase a PCI board with a Spartan3, some SRAM, and a > DRAM slot for $200? That's way more than the cost of the parts. Heck, > with Xilinx's recent anouncements about 3rd party PCI-Express support I > should be able to get that interface for the same price. What I'm > picturing is general coprocessing. Nobody seems to think FPGAs are > valuable for everyday coprocessing if you judge by the boards being > made. Cray, Starbridge, SGI, Nallatech, and others recognize the value > in coprocessing but they are targeting the HPCS market. It's the wrong > market. All the other PCI boards I've seen lately are made for > prototyping or DSP processing, especially in the sub $5k range. A > simple Spartan3-based board for coprocessing could change the world. > Video game companies could ship neural net modules, math companies > could ship libraries that use it for acceleration, CAD and imaging > companies could take advantage of it for acceleration, etc; for that to > happen, everybody needs one. For that to happen, they have to be as > cheap as a decent graphics card and compilers for them must be as cheap > as GNU gcc. And they don't need a freakin' serial port, ethernet port, > parallel port, USB port, half a dozen different RAM ports, proprietary > connectors, and the kitchen sink for prototyping! How are we going to > get there and why are we not there already? The problem is that the number of applications usefull for normal users where a "tiny" FPGA like Spartan3 can make a significant speed-up in comparision to a 3.8GHz Pentium IV, is quite small. Do you notice that currently, GPUs for example are monsters with 300+ million transistors? FPGAs, even the fattest ones are way too small to justify their application in GENERAL processing markets. Don't take me wrong, I do DSP in FPGA and not with processors exactly for performance reasons but I use it for very special applications not for say, accelerating games or CAD applications as you suggest. If you could get an FPGA board with a capacity of 10 million gaits in less than $200 in the market, then I could start thinking of some small applications for it in general PC market. With smaller FPGAs, just forget it.Article: 87196
"Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message news:dbgc00$ced$01$1@news.t-online.com... > Finally launched! > > additional features (what I did not know) > > 1) standby > 2) 20MHz on chip oscillator > 3) distributed memory in all devices > > and first devices should be available already !! > > WAU!! > > Antti > Seen any pricing yet? I'm guessing about US$2-$4 for smallest to largest in (say) 1k lots. Will ask the rep tomorrow. Pity about the lack of small useable (non-bga) packages (a 20 pin SOIC or 44 pin TQFP would have been nice). I've also got a ready application for one thats 4 times as big as the biggest. Cheers, AlfArticle: 87197
"Unbeliever" <alfkatz@remove.the.bleedin.obvious.ieee.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:42dcccc1$0$25427$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message > news:dbgc00$ced$01$1@news.t-online.com... > > Finally launched! > > > > additional features (what I did not know) > > > > 1) standby > > 2) 20MHz on chip oscillator > > 3) distributed memory in all devices > > > > and first devices should be available already !! > > > > WAU!! > > > > Antti > > > Seen any pricing yet? I'm guessing about US$2-$4 for smallest to largest in > (say) 1k lots. Will ask the rep tomorrow. > > Pity about the lack of small useable (non-bga) packages (a 20 pin SOIC or 44 > pin TQFP would have been nice). I've also got a ready application for one > thats 4 times as big as the biggest. > > Cheers, > Alf > yep, TSOP20 would be nice! or QFN32 the only pricing I have is approx 8$USD for machXO1200 qty 100 thats not so bad as I you get a free PLL too :) the bad thing is that the free tools support for machXO is promised in August only :( AnttiArticle: 87198
Alf, 100p TQFP is a quite useful package, don't you think? If you're looking for a big 'MachXO', then you end up with the LatticeXP - 10K LUT's. The only trade off is that you'll need a BGA package, I'm afraid. Cheers, Luc On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:49:54 +1000, "Unbeliever" <alfkatz@remove.the.bleedin.obvious.ieee.org> wrote: > >"Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message >news:dbgc00$ced$01$1@news.t-online.com... >> Finally launched! >> >> additional features (what I did not know) >> >> 1) standby >> 2) 20MHz on chip oscillator >> 3) distributed memory in all devices >> >> and first devices should be available already !! >> >> WAU!! >> >> Antti >> >Seen any pricing yet? I'm guessing about US$2-$4 for smallest to largest in >(say) 1k lots. Will ask the rep tomorrow. > >Pity about the lack of small useable (non-bga) packages (a 20 pin SOIC or 44 >pin TQFP would have been nice). I've also got a ready application for one >thats 4 times as big as the biggest. > >Cheers, >Alf >Article: 87199
Making the case as a board manufacturer the cost of a board is not just the chips on there. The development board market is not a hugh volume market and usually assembly and test of boards is considerably more that you would incur in a consumer product volume level. Companies in this market are also not charities and at least like to get the development labour costs back on a board development. Man time, or even women time, is expensive and if advertised over a few hundred boards still makes a considerable effect on a board price. And to cap all that it is even nice to make the odd bit of profit. This tends to keep the shareholders happy which is often a good thing. And to make our case I agree there are a lot boards out there than have features that most people individually don't want but you don't want to make individual boards for everyone due to the costs involved. As we don't have manufacturer lines to push, unlike some of our competitors, our approach here is to go for a minimalist fixed fit of functions and then to make up for this with cheap simply manufactured modules. We also design our boards so that you can add your own add-ons easily. Our boards come close to general use scenario and we already supplying some number of boards in this way. Volume customers do get substantial discounts as the batch handling, shipping etc has a much lower cost base for us to cover. At the moment PCI-E is a lot dearer to implement than 32bit PCI. The PCI-E core also eats a large part of your FPGA unless you have a large device to start with. The Philips device listed for the phy part of the design is currently hard to get, and dearer than the 3 bus switches we use on 32 bit PCI, although I believe that supply issue will ease shortly. And to end this long rant and to wake up those skinflints now sleeping we will have a cheap product that at least in part will meet your needs late September or early October. Still not happy then go make your own. John Adair Enterpoint Ltd. - Soon to be the home of Raggedstone1. The very very cheap PCI Development Board. http://www.enterpoint.co.uk "Brannon" <brannonking@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121715486.789777.277650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Why can I not purchase a PCI board with a Spartan3, some SRAM, and a > DRAM slot for $200? That's way more than the cost of the parts. Heck, > with Xilinx's recent anouncements about 3rd party PCI-Express support I > should be able to get that interface for the same price. What I'm > picturing is general coprocessing. Nobody seems to think FPGAs are > valuable for everyday coprocessing if you judge by the boards being > made. Cray, Starbridge, SGI, Nallatech, and others recognize the value > in coprocessing but they are targeting the HPCS market. It's the wrong > market. All the other PCI boards I've seen lately are made for > prototyping or DSP processing, especially in the sub $5k range. A > simple Spartan3-based board for coprocessing could change the world. > Video game companies could ship neural net modules, math companies > could ship libraries that use it for acceleration, CAD and imaging > companies could take advantage of it for acceleration, etc; for that to > happen, everybody needs one. For that to happen, they have to be as > cheap as a decent graphics card and compilers for them must be as cheap > as GNU gcc. And they don't need a freakin' serial port, ethernet port, > parallel port, USB port, half a dozen different RAM ports, proprietary > connectors, and the kitchen sink for prototyping! How are we going to > get there and why are we not there already? >
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
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