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
On Apr 13, 1:56=A0am, Stebanoid <steban...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, I answer myself. > rxrecclk have frequency 12.5MHz. XAPP875 Dynamically Programmable DRU for High-Speed Serial I/O below may be of interest to you http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/application_notes/xapp875.pdf Cheers, Jim http://myfpgablog.blogspot.com/Article: 151501
On Apr 13, 3:19=A0pm, Nobby Anderson <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > slight_return <matthew.bergg...@altium.com> wrote: > > On Apr 13, 7:29=A0am, Nobby Anderson <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> As far as I'm concerned the sky started falling on on Altium when they > >> abandoned PCad. =A0But then I'm still bitter and twisted about that ;-= ) > > >> Nobby > >> A happy PCad 2006 user. > > > Hi Nobby, > > > Having come from the Accel / PCAD camp myself I can appreciate the > > sense of loyalty toward PCAD as it was and in some ways continues to > > be a fantastic product. =A0Without steering this thread off course (and > > without making this a sales pitch) I know we've transitioned a number > > of customers (willingly) over the altium designer, with great > > success. =A0It may be that we need to spend some time with you, hooking > > you and one of our support teams up to show you the differences and > > get you spun up on the benefits (this assumes of course that we > > haven't already :). =A0A lot of work went into incorporating PCAD > > capabilities into AD. =A0Again, I'm not going to try and sell you on it= , > > but may be worth contacting our support centers (specific to each > > region) and get some face time with an Apps Engineer / the tool. > > WE (well, I, as it's mostly me that uses it) did make the transition to > AD and we used it for a few PCBs at the time, and I still have one of the > 2009 releases installed here (summer I think). =A0However for our purpose= s > (for our purposes being important) it was not great for a number of > reasons. =A0Firstly, it tried to be all things for all men, integrating > schematic capture, PCB layout, FPGA design, software and even I think > mechanical design in the later releases (can't remember) and it did > none of the things we used PCad for well. =A0I only want schemtic capture > and PCB layout, ie exactly what PCad does, and nothing else. The PCB > layout capabilities of PCad were, even by summer 2009, far in advance > of anything that AD could do, it was just so much easier to use (all > manual routing here, nothing particularly complicated, max 4 tracked laye= r > double sided designs). =A0Schematic capture wasn't as smooth, either, but > there was nothing much in it between the two in real terms. =A0ADs librar= y, > and some of the more advanced features of component building was better > than PCad's once you got used to it though. > > However we just didn't use or want 80% of the features of the package. > We have no need for FPGA integration, the FPGA tools we use from the > manufacturer do everything we want them to do. =A0We don't want source co= de > integration, our coding methedologies are way ahead of anything it > actually supported and anyway it's the wrong platform. =A0I don't need > thermal analysis or mechanical integration or any of the other bells and > whistles. =A0PCad does absolutely everything we need, and by 2006 SP2 it > did it well. > > As others have said, we also don't want to pay through the nose for a > constant stream of updates, either. =A0It was just far too expensive, > and the perception (and I think the reality) is that we were paying for > ongoing development of a product 80% of which we would never ever use. > So, we paid it for a year or two, and then happily returned to PCad and > free forever use. > > PCad was a good, mid-range product, and in my view there is still a > need for something like that, particularly for small outfits like > ours. =A0We might consider AD again, assuming it really has improved, > if we could get a version that did schematic capture and PCB layout > only (and other necessary things like library management of course) > but it would have to be significantly less expensive both in terms > of startup cost and ongoing costs than AD is at the moment (or was > in the 2009 era anyway). > > Nobby Hi Nobby, Good feedback! Thank you. Again, I'm trying to avoid hijacking this thread and turning it into a sales pitch however... :) I know at one stage our pricing had risen to something dangerously close to the old Accel a'la cart pricing model for PCAD (AD rose to almost $15K where at one point even Accel/PCAD ran ~$20K). This found us creeping closer and closer to the price of our competitor's tools (if you can get clear pricing from them). And it was at this point that we pressed the proverbial reset button and decided this ran counter to our core mission of providing a comprehensive range of technologies priced at a point that would put them in the reach for every engineer. This resulted in a >60% drop in pricing and a moving to total pricing transparency by putting the pricing out there on the website. Now others (competitors) have somewhat followed suit however the difference we found was when we mentioned our price, we were talking about pricing for every aspect of the tool (an out-of-the-box-you-get- everything price), where others were still holding back and reserving additional features for sale as add-ons. So where you found that you might not use 80% of Altium Designer, that to us is perfectly fine, if that suits your needs. The pricing is low enough now to make that 20% you *do* use, still *very* competitively priced, relatively speaking. And as time goes on, you might use more areas of the software *however* the difference is that those areas of the software are already installed on your desktop and there's no additional add-ons to buy (for example, where others proffer things like pin swapping tools as an add-on starting at ~$10K and up...for us, this seems silly. Though you might not need it today, you may someday and it should just be there, in the box for when you do need it). To the differences in performance and usability, this is somewhat more difficult to discuss the specifics on a forum such as this but I'd welcome a chance to chat about it as I feel like if there are weak points or points where you feel PCAD was faster or easier to use, then we want to be sure to capture these. I was on the team that evaluated the transition from PCAD to Altium Designer and though the workflow was different (and indeed there were some additional features that both packages had that the other did not) I'd suspect we pretty much closed the gap on these over the years. Afterall, we still have a large percentage of the team that developed PCAD 2006 in our R&D org, working on Altium Designer today. All friends and colleagues of mine for many years and all still infusing the software with the best-in- class sorts of capabilities that made PCAD PCB so strong. Anytime you feel like chatting, drop me a note. As I'd said, I'd love to know your concerns and issues that you experienced at the time. My email is simply first name . last name at altium dot com. Cheers, Matt Berggren AltiumArticle: 151502
slight_return <matthew.berggren@altium.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 3:19 pm, Nobby Anderson <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> slight_return <matthew.bergg...@altium.com> wrote: >> > On Apr 13, 7:29 am, Nobby Anderson <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> As far as I'm concerned the sky started falling on on Altium when they >> >> abandoned PCad. But then I'm still bitter and twisted about that ;-) >> >> >> Nobby >> >> A happy PCad 2006 user. >> >> > Hi Nobby, >> >> > Having come from the Accel / PCAD camp myself I can appreciate the >> > sense of loyalty toward PCAD as it was and in some ways continues to >> > be a fantastic product. Without steering this thread off course (and >> > without making this a sales pitch) I know we've transitioned a number >> > of customers (willingly) over the altium designer, with great >> > success. It may be that we need to spend some time with you, hooking >> > you and one of our support teams up to show you the differences and >> > get you spun up on the benefits (this assumes of course that we >> > haven't already :). A lot of work went into incorporating PCAD >> > capabilities into AD. Again, I'm not going to try and sell you on it, >> > but may be worth contacting our support centers (specific to each >> > region) and get some face time with an Apps Engineer / the tool. >> >> WE (well, I, as it's mostly me that uses it) did make the transition to >> AD and we used it for a few PCBs at the time, and I still have one of the >> 2009 releases installed here (summer I think). However for our purposes >> (for our purposes being important) it was not great for a number of >> reasons. Firstly, it tried to be all things for all men, integrating >> schematic capture, PCB layout, FPGA design, software and even I think >> mechanical design in the later releases (can't remember) and it did >> none of the things we used PCad for well. I only want schemtic capture >> and PCB layout, ie exactly what PCad does, and nothing else. The PCB >> layout capabilities of PCad were, even by summer 2009, far in advance >> of anything that AD could do, it was just so much easier to use (all >> manual routing here, nothing particularly complicated, max 4 tracked layer >> double sided designs). Schematic capture wasn't as smooth, either, but >> there was nothing much in it between the two in real terms. ADs library, >> and some of the more advanced features of component building was better >> than PCad's once you got used to it though. >> >> However we just didn't use or want 80% of the features of the package. >> We have no need for FPGA integration, the FPGA tools we use from the >> manufacturer do everything we want them to do. We don't want source code >> integration, our coding methedologies are way ahead of anything it >> actually supported and anyway it's the wrong platform. I don't need >> thermal analysis or mechanical integration or any of the other bells and >> whistles. PCad does absolutely everything we need, and by 2006 SP2 it >> did it well. >> >> As others have said, we also don't want to pay through the nose for a >> constant stream of updates, either. It was just far too expensive, >> and the perception (and I think the reality) is that we were paying for >> ongoing development of a product 80% of which we would never ever use. >> So, we paid it for a year or two, and then happily returned to PCad and >> free forever use. >> >> PCad was a good, mid-range product, and in my view there is still a >> need for something like that, particularly for small outfits like >> ours. We might consider AD again, assuming it really has improved, >> if we could get a version that did schematic capture and PCB layout >> only (and other necessary things like library management of course) >> but it would have to be significantly less expensive both in terms >> of startup cost and ongoing costs than AD is at the moment (or was >> in the 2009 era anyway). >> >> Nobby > > Hi Nobby, > > Good feedback! Thank you. Again, I'm trying to avoid hijacking this > thread and turning it into a sales pitch however... :) I know at one > stage our pricing had risen to something dangerously close to the old > Accel a'la cart pricing model for PCAD (AD rose to almost $15K where > at one point even Accel/PCAD ran ~$20K). This found us creeping > closer and closer to the price of our competitor's tools (if you can > get clear pricing from them). And it was at this point that we > pressed the proverbial reset button and decided this ran counter to > our core mission of providing a comprehensive range of technologies > priced at a point that would put them in the reach for every > engineer. This resulted in a >60% drop in pricing and a moving to > total pricing transparency by putting the pricing out there on the > website. > > Now others (competitors) have somewhat followed suit however the > difference we found was when we mentioned our price, we were talking > about pricing for every aspect of the tool (an out-of-the-box-you-get- > everything price), where others were still holding back and reserving > additional features for sale as add-ons. So where you found that you > might not use 80% of Altium Designer, that to us is perfectly fine, if > that suits your needs. The pricing is low enough now to make that 20% > you *do* use, still *very* competitively priced, relatively speaking. > And as time goes on, you might use more areas of the software > *however* the difference is that those areas of the software are > already installed on your desktop and there's no additional add-ons to > buy (for example, where others proffer things like pin swapping tools > as an add-on starting at ~$10K and up...for us, this seems silly. > Though you might not need it today, you may someday and it should just > be there, in the box for when you do need it). > > To the differences in performance and usability, this is somewhat more > difficult to discuss the specifics on a forum such as this but I'd > welcome a chance to chat about it as I feel like if there are weak > points or points where you feel PCAD was faster or easier to use, then > we want to be sure to capture these. I was on the team that evaluated > the transition from PCAD to Altium Designer and though the workflow > was different (and indeed there were some additional features that > both packages had that the other did not) I'd suspect we pretty much > closed the gap on these over the years. Afterall, we still have a > large percentage of the team that developed PCAD 2006 in our R&D org, > working on Altium Designer today. All friends and colleagues of mine > for many years and all still infusing the software with the best-in- > class sorts of capabilities that made PCAD PCB so strong. > > Anytime you feel like chatting, drop me a note. As I'd said, I'd love > to know your concerns and issues that you experienced at the time. My > email is simply first name . last name at altium dot com. I will. However I don't buy the "might not need it today, you may sometime need it" though. I'd prefer to pay 20% now for the 20% I use (OK, I might pay 40% for the first 20%) and the remainder if I ever do decide to use the other stuff. We've been doing this for a long time now and we're pretty sure we won't need to do the other stuff in the forseeable future. I accept that I haven't looked at your pricing here in the UK in a few years and it's possible you're much more competitive although of course it's hard to compete against a product that does everything we need at the moment, still works, and costs us nothing. There is just no reason for us to upgrade, and nothing that AD does currently will persuade us to do so so long as PCad continues to work on whatever version of Windows we currently use. To make you feel better, though, if I had to upgrade for whatever reason I'd almost certainly go the AD route, especially if it had inherited the better features of PCad in the meantime. Now if you were to develop a linux port I'd be there tomorrow. Well, AutoDesk might have to do the same with AutoCAD too, I guess, to make it a viable move. :) NobbyArticle: 151503
I encounted a problem with my PCI-E design with ML505 in the xapp 859 of xilinx. The host PC couldn't detect the ML505 and OS can not recognize the card. My Ise tools' version is 12.1 . If the ML505 is powered , the Pc hangs and does not start. The board use the PC power. When I power up PC the OS was still hang thereArticle: 151504
I just wanted to point out that we've evaluated Altium and the reason we didn't buy it (this time) is the yearly support fee, and my experience with large companies and their support is that it's tedious and you have to get past the support team answering the idiots first before you get anywhere. That usually results in a few days of wasteing time trying stuff instead of getting the answer when you need it, and when you get the reply you want, you have found out yourself. I am currently using Eagle and is happy with it, cause the things it can't do, we can program it to do. And I can do advanced stuff with it. And the support is out of this world (tell me if you know other companies where you get to talk to the developers directly just by posting a case on their nntp server). If Altium had monthly support fee's (at 1/12'th of the cost) where you could jump in and out for a month at a time it would be more interesting, but maybe not economical viable for Altium.. I know Altium has advantages (especially on teamwork) and I like the idea of it. But complexity is very high with all those drawbacks.Article: 151505
Still lost in the woods. I came across the Simili download so I searched the newsgroup. Hasn't been a post in the newsgroup for 3 years. Is there a fatal flaw of some kind with this software that would make it something to be avoided? I kind of like the fact it is only a 9 meg zip as opposed to installing fistfuls of Webpack gigs. I'm not needing anything beyond being able to program/debug stuff in the 22V10 range. RickArticle: 151506
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:51:55 -0500, ouadrani wrote: > I encounted a problem with my PCI-E design with ML505 in the xapp 859 of > xilinx. > The host PC couldn't detect the ML505 and OS can not recognize the card. > My Ise tools' version is 12.1 . > If the ML505 is powered , the Pc hangs and does not start. The board use > the PC power. When I power up PC the OS was still hang there How is the ML505 being configured? You may need to configure from Platform Flash to meet the startup time requirements for PCIe. However, configuring from the slow CompactFlash, I have still had well over 90% success in recognising the card. The remaining times, the PC boots fine but doesn't see the card. A power cycle cures that. If the ML505 is preventing the PC from booting, are you sure you are using a bitfile with a valid PCIe interface? (e.g. the Xilinx PCIe demo example) Does the card appear in the output from /sbin/lspci ? - BrianArticle: 151507
Xilinx have some answer records that give things to try of you are having boot problems. Jon --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comArticle: 151508
Im looking for an analog oscilloscope in the 2Ghz+ analog bw range and wonder if you have any experience to share. Im used to the infiniium 54825, but want to go faster (but not spend a fortune on a new one). I've seen a couple of "old" 54846 on ebay, and one recently went for $2800 wich is a price I can handle, but the next price on the list is not that nice. I want to probe LVDS@1-2GHz signals, DVI and ddr3 memory buses at 533Mhz.Article: 151509
On Apr 15, 1:35=A0am, Rick <richardcort...@gmail.com> wrote: > Still lost in the woods. > > I came across the Simili download so I searched the newsgroup. Hasn't > been a post in the newsgroup for 3 years. Is there a fatal flaw of > some kind with this software that would make it something to be > avoided? I kind of like the fact it is only a 9 meg zip as opposed to > installing fistfuls of Webpack gigs. > > I'm not needing anything beyond being able to program/debug stuff in > the 22V10 range. > > Rick OK, looks like you need to add the manufacturers definitions which would have meant downloading gigs of info. If I have it right the program looks on your hard drive for most of the popular manufacturers installs and compiles from there. I finally backed off to WinCUPL from Atmel. Still only 20 megs and seems beginner enough for me to use. Managed to get my first try compiled and trying to learn the simulator now. RickArticle: 151510
On 4/15/2011 9:36 PM, Morten Leikvoll wrote: > Im looking for an analog oscilloscope in the 2Ghz+ analog bw range and > wonder if you have any experience to share. Im used to the infiniium 54825, > but want to go faster (but not spend a fortune on a new one). I've seen a > couple of "old" 54846 on ebay, and one recently went for $2800 wich is a > price I can handle, but the next price on the list is not that nice. > I want to probe LVDS@1-2GHz signals, DVI and ddr3 memory buses at 533Mhz. > > Hi Morten, How much is Hyperlynx? HTH, Syms.Article: 151511
"Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ioalgd$vho$1@dont-email.me... > On 4/15/2011 9:36 PM, Morten Leikvoll wrote: >> Im looking for an analog oscilloscope in the 2Ghz+ analog bw range and >> wonder if you have any experience to share. Im used to the infiniium >> 54825, >> but want to go faster (but not spend a fortune on a new one). I've seen a >> couple of "old" 54846 on ebay, and one recently went for $2800 wich is a >> price I can handle, but the next price on the list is not that nice. >> I want to probe LVDS@1-2GHz signals, DVI and ddr3 memory buses at 533Mhz. >> >> > Hi Morten, > How much is Hyperlynx? > HTH, Syms. More than the cost of a decent scope - and it's only a simulation so garbage in -> garbage out. HTH PhilArticle: 151512
On 4/16/2011 10:37 AM, Phil Jessop wrote: > "Symon"<symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ioalgd$vho$1@dont-email.me... >> On 4/15/2011 9:36 PM, Morten Leikvoll wrote: >>> Im looking for an analog oscilloscope in the 2Ghz+ analog bw range and >>> wonder if you have any experience to share. Im used to the infiniium >>> 54825, >>> but want to go faster (but not spend a fortune on a new one). I've seen a >>> couple of "old" 54846 on ebay, and one recently went for $2800 wich is a >>> price I can handle, but the next price on the list is not that nice. >>> I want to probe LVDS@1-2GHz signals, DVI and ddr3 memory buses at 533Mhz. >>> >>> >> Hi Morten, >> How much is Hyperlynx? >> HTH, Syms. > > More than the cost of a decent scope - and it's only a simulation so garbage > in -> garbage out. > > HTH > > Phil > > Hi Phil, Perhaps you can explain how you would use a 'scope to measure the OP's "LVDS@1-2GHz signals"? Thanks, Symon.Article: 151513
"Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ioc0t1$8h2$1@dont-email.me... > On 4/16/2011 10:37 AM, Phil Jessop wrote: >> "Symon"<symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ioalgd$vho$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 4/15/2011 9:36 PM, Morten Leikvoll wrote: >>>> Im looking for an analog oscilloscope in the 2Ghz+ analog bw range and >>>> wonder if you have any experience to share. Im used to the infiniium >>>> 54825, >>>> but want to go faster (but not spend a fortune on a new one). I've seen >>>> a >>>> couple of "old" 54846 on ebay, and one recently went for $2800 wich is >>>> a >>>> price I can handle, but the next price on the list is not that nice. >>>> I want to probe LVDS@1-2GHz signals, DVI and ddr3 memory buses at >>>> 533Mhz. >>>> >>>> >>> Hi Morten, >>> How much is Hyperlynx? >>> HTH, Syms. >> >> More than the cost of a decent scope - and it's only a simulation so >> garbage >> in -> garbage out. >> >> HTH >> >> Phil >> >> > Hi Phil, > Perhaps you can explain how you would use a 'scope to measure the OP's > "LVDS@1-2GHz signals"? > Thanks, Symon. Hi Symon, ??? Use a 2GHz scope with a differential probe. (Tek P7500 series or similar) Are you new to this game? Thanks PhilArticle: 151514
Hello, I am dealing with some issues with timing delays.I would like to know how to implement timing constraints for combinatorial nets in a simple way. For example: an AND gate with two inputs: A and B and I want to force XST to guarantee that the signal A arrives before B. I precise that the AND gate is one element of a combinatorial path (A and B are not PADs). Any ideas? Thanks for your help. --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comArticle: 151515
Well, finally got Altera Quartus 10.1 working on Jolicloud linux using the = dash->bash hack. The compile speed on this netbook is quite good compared t= o the old windows box. I've fiddled with the instruction set, the sound fil= ter and the video resolution, and added some modulo addressing on the R and= S stack registers. It now weighs in at 75% of 1270 4LUT device. No specific altera megafunctio= ns used. Pure VHDL. (will add UFM spi though at some point). With no constr= aints it gives Fmax of 85MHz in C5. All arithmetic is based on the MInus in= struction. All conditional branching is based on stack return address manip= ulation. http://code.google.com/p/nibz/downloads/detail?name=3DnibzX7.vhd&can=3D2&q= =3D which is a re-upload while a compiling version (no VHDL errors) Apart from later bug fixes, it's a wrap. Free BSD. Cheers JackoArticle: 151516
Why exactly do you want to do this? Jon --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comArticle: 151517
On 4/16/2011 2:53 PM, Phil Jessop wrote: > "Symon"<symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ioc0t1$8h2$1@dont-email.me... >> On 4/16/2011 10:37 AM, Phil Jessop wrote: >>> "Symon"<symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ioalgd$vho$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On 4/15/2011 9:36 PM, Morten Leikvoll wrote: >>>>> Im looking for an analog oscilloscope in the 2Ghz+ analog bw range and >>>>> wonder if you have any experience to share. Im used to the infiniium >>>>> 54825, >>>>> but want to go faster (but not spend a fortune on a new one). I've seen >>>>> a >>>>> couple of "old" 54846 on ebay, and one recently went for $2800 wich is >>>>> a >>>>> price I can handle, but the next price on the list is not that nice. >>>>> I want to probe LVDS@1-2GHz signals, DVI and ddr3 memory buses at >>>>> 533Mhz. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi Morten, >>>> How much is Hyperlynx? >>>> HTH, Syms. >>> >>> More than the cost of a decent scope - and it's only a simulation so >>> garbage >>> in -> garbage out. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >> Hi Phil, >> Perhaps you can explain how you would use a 'scope to measure the OP's >> "LVDS@1-2GHz signals"? >> Thanks, Symon. > > Hi Symon, > > ??? > > Use a 2GHz scope with a differential probe. (Tek P7500 series or similar) > > Are you new to this game? > > Thanks > > Phil > > Hi Phil, Is it true that the signal in the middle of a transmission line may not be the same as it is at the receiver circuitry? Apparently, so I've heard, there can be 'reflections', whatever they are?! These may make the mid-trace measured signal different to the signal at the receiver. Who would've thought it! How would you probe on the input IOBs of the IC's receiver circuit with a differential probe of a Tek P5700 series or similar? Thanks, Symon. p.s. What do you mean by 'new' and 'game'? xxArticle: 151518
On Apr 16, 7:38=A0am, "lyo34" <lyonel.barthe@n_o_s_p_a_m.lirmm.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > I am dealing with some issues with timing > delays.I would like to know how to implement > timing constraints for combinatorial nets > in a simple way. > > For example: > an AND gate with two inputs: A and B > and I want to force XST to guarantee that > the signal A arrives before B. I precise that > the AND gate is one element of a combinatorial > path (A and B are not PADs). > > Any ideas? > > Thanks for your help. > > --------------------------------------- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > Posted throughhttp://www.FPGARelated.com A synthesizer (XST in your case) cannot guarantee any timing it can only provide estimates. The only way to determine if the timing is identical would be after the entire path has been placed and routed. And then due to process variation with any IC the delays will never be identical. Ed McGettigan -- Xilinx Inc.Article: 151519
On Apr 16, 12:39=A0pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, finally got Altera Quartus 10.1 working on Jolicloud linux using th= e dash->bash hack. The compile speed on this netbook is quite good compared= to the old windows box. I've fiddled with the instruction set, the sound f= ilter and the video resolution, and added some modulo addressing on the R a= nd S stack registers. > > It now weighs in at 75% of 1270 4LUT device. No specific altera megafunct= ions used. Pure VHDL. (will add UFM spi though at some point). With no cons= traints it gives Fmax of 85MHz in C5. All arithmetic is based on the MInus = instruction. All conditional branching is based on stack return address man= ipulation. > > http://code.google.com/p/nibz/downloads/detail?name=3DnibzX7.vhd&can=3D2&= q=3D > which is a re-upload while a compiling version (no VHDL errors) > > Apart from later bug fixes, it's a wrap. Free BSD. > > Cheers Jacko Jacko, What was you goal in designing this CPU? What were you attempting to opimize? Only having a minus instruction for arithmetic seems like it might use a dozen or so fewer LUTs, but at what cost? I can only assume that means an addition is done by first subtracting one addend from 0 and then subtracting it from the other addend. So every add requires two instructions. I believe your instruction set is pretty minimal from what I've seen. How many bits wide are the stacks? Just under 1000 LUTs is not bad for a 16 bit processor and is really good for a 32 bit machine. Have you seen the ZPU? It is a stack based machine designed to be coded in C! What will they think of next... RickArticle: 151520
"Symon" <symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:iock9m$j6s$1@dont-email.me... > On 4/16/2011 2:53 PM, Phil Jessop wrote: >> "Symon"<symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ioc0t1$8h2$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 4/16/2011 10:37 AM, Phil Jessop wrote: >>>> "Symon"<symon_brewer@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ioalgd$vho$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 4/15/2011 9:36 PM, Morten Leikvoll wrote: >>>>>> Im looking for an analog oscilloscope in the 2Ghz+ analog bw range >>>>>> and >>>>>> wonder if you have any experience to share. Im used to the infiniium >>>>>> 54825, >>>>>> but want to go faster (but not spend a fortune on a new one). I've >>>>>> seen >>>>>> a >>>>>> couple of "old" 54846 on ebay, and one recently went for $2800 wich >>>>>> is >>>>>> a >>>>>> price I can handle, but the next price on the list is not that nice. >>>>>> I want to probe LVDS@1-2GHz signals, DVI and ddr3 memory buses at >>>>>> 533Mhz. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hi Morten, >>>>> How much is Hyperlynx? >>>>> HTH, Syms. >>>> >>>> More than the cost of a decent scope - and it's only a simulation so >>>> garbage >>>> in -> garbage out. >>>> >>>> HTH >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>> Hi Phil, >>> Perhaps you can explain how you would use a 'scope to measure the OP's >>> "LVDS@1-2GHz signals"? >>> Thanks, Symon. >> >> Hi Symon, >> >> ??? >> >> Use a 2GHz scope with a differential probe. (Tek P7500 series or similar) >> >> Are you new to this game? >> >> Thanks >> >> Phil >> >> > Hi Phil, > > Is it true that the signal in the middle of a transmission line may not be > the same as it is at the receiver circuitry? Apparently, so I've heard, > there can be 'reflections', whatever they are?! These may make the > mid-trace measured signal different to the signal at the receiver. Who > would've thought it! > > How would you probe on the input IOBs of the IC's receiver circuit with a > differential probe of a Tek P5700 series or similar? > > Thanks, Symon. > > p.s. What do you mean by 'new' and 'game'? xx > Rookie xxxxArticle: 151521
I remember having a problem with that. The solution was configuring device class and BARs (base address registers). Thanks, EvgeniArticle: 151522
Hi we have an 10/100Mbps ethernet core (from Opencore) and we have run this core successfully on Spartan 3E kit. Now we need to shift to another platform i.e. Virtex-4 FX12 mini module (due to small size it offers). Is there a way to run this ethernet core on FX12 mini module? although this module has a hard Tri-Mode EMAC integrated into the Virtex-4 FPGA along with PHY. Thanks --------------------------------------- Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.comArticle: 151523
Hi everyone, The latest version of GTKWave (3.3.20) windows binary is available here: http://www.dspia.com/gtkwave.html All necessary libraries are in the all_libs.tar.gz file. Unzipping them to the directory where gtkwave.exe resides creates the directory structure necessary to get around the non-start issue several people have observed. The bin directory (if not also the gtkwave exe directory) should be added to the path. If you have working version of 3.3.x, only the exe file is necessary. -- Muzaffer Kal DSPIA INC. ASIC/FPGA Design Services http://www.dspia.comArticle: 151524
On Saturday, 16 April 2011 21:18:18 UTC+1, rickman wrote: <snip> > What was you goal in designing this CPU?=20 To make a very small system (it includes a video and sound output too), aft= er that the priorities were a high MIPS/MB rating, a high MIPS rating, a re= asonably high code density using a dynamic compression system, and a founda= tion to make larger SMP systems. > What were you attempting to > opimize?=20 Mainly area, but the speed technology was used for the last compile as it f= its. > Only having a minus instruction for arithmetic seems like it > might use a dozen or so fewer LUTs, but at what cost? I can only > assume that means an addition is done by first subtracting one addend > from 0 and then subtracting it from the other addend. So every add > requires two instructions. I believe your instruction set is pretty > minimal from what I've seen. Yes, the instruction set is optimized for threaded code, and so it's likely= + would be a subroutine. > How many bits wide are the stacks? Just > under 1000 LUTs is not bad for a 16 bit processor and is really good > for a 32 bit machine. The stacks (2 of them) are 16 bit wide with auto increment and decrement. > Have you seen the ZPU? It is a stack based machine designed to be > coded in C! What will they think of next... I had a look, and the very small version is limited in the number of instru= ctions it offers. Designed for C? Almost as funny a claim as designed for H= askell...=20 Cheers Jacko
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