About SPICE3f5

P

phanic

Guest
I use spice3f5 to simulate an operation amplifier (netlist is attached
below). I found the simulation results of spice3f5 are significantly
difference from that of HSPICE2003sp1 ( about 1v difference, both OP
and TRAN). What's the reason?

* op amp
M3 n_g_low n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M4 n_d n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M6 n_out n_d 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=135u
M1 n_g_low vin- n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M2 n_d vin+ n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M5 n_source n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=67u
M7 n_out n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=32u
M8 n_g_hi n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=2u
Rc n_d n_RC 200
Cc n_out n_RC 10p
Cload n_out 0 3p
Ibias n_g_hi 0 19u
Vdd vdd 0 5
Vin1 vin- 0 sin 2.5 10u 10
Vin2 vin+ 0 2.5
..op
..tran 0.1m 1
..probe v(n_out)
..print v(n_out)
..model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298
phi=0.688 lambda=0.03 ld=0.2u uo=600 tpg=1 rsh=40 js=0.753u nsub=8e15
cj=271u cjsw=600p mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.904 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
..model pmos pmos level=1 vto=-0.9 kp=34.5u tox=20n gamma=0.471
phi=0.730 lambda=0.06 ld=0.2u uo=200 tpg=-1 rsh=60 js=0.176u nsub=2e16
cj=423u cjsw=1.2n mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.928 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
..option method=trap maxord=2
..end
 
On 22 Apr 2007 06:58:39 -0700, phanic <efouth@gmail.com> wrote:

I use spice3f5 to simulate an operation amplifier (netlist is attached
below). I found the simulation results of spice3f5 are significantly
difference from that of HSPICE2003sp1 ( about 1v difference, both OP
and TRAN). What's the reason?

* op amp
M3 n_g_low n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M4 n_d n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M6 n_out n_d 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=135u
M1 n_g_low vin- n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M2 n_d vin+ n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M5 n_source n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=67u
M7 n_out n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=32u
M8 n_g_hi n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=2u
Rc n_d n_RC 200
Cc n_out n_RC 10p
Cload n_out 0 3p
Ibias n_g_hi 0 19u
Vdd vdd 0 5
Vin1 vin- 0 sin 2.5 10u 10
Vin2 vin+ 0 2.5
.op
.tran 0.1m 1
.probe v(n_out)
.print v(n_out)
.model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298
phi=0.688 lambda=0.03 ld=0.2u uo=600 tpg=1 rsh=40 js=0.753u nsub=8e15
cj=271u cjsw=600p mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.904 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
.model pmos pmos level=1 vto=-0.9 kp=34.5u tox=20n gamma=0.471
phi=0.730 lambda=0.06 ld=0.2u uo=200 tpg=-1 rsh=60 js=0.176u nsub=2e16
cj=423u cjsw=1.2n mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.928 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
.option method=trap maxord=2
.end
Click to expand...
Cockpit error ?:)

What IS the 1V difference... bias differences, signal amplitude
differences... what?

Any error messages?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
 
On Apr 24, 12:16 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 06:58:39 -0700, phanic <efo...@gmail.com> wrote:





I use spice3f5 to simulate an operation amplifier (netlist is attached
below). I found the simulation results of spice3f5 are significantly
difference from that of HSPICE2003sp1 ( about 1v difference, both OP
and TRAN). What's the reason?

* op amp
M3 n_g_low n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M4 n_d n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M6 n_out n_d 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=135u
M1 n_g_low vin- n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M2 n_d vin+ n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M5 n_source n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=67u
M7 n_out n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=32u
M8 n_g_hi n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=2u
Rc n_d n_RC 200
Cc n_out n_RC 10p
Cload n_out 0 3p
Ibias n_g_hi 0 19u
Vdd vdd 0 5
Vin1 vin- 0 sin 2.5 10u 10
Vin2 vin+ 0 2.5
.op
.tran 0.1m 1
.probe v(n_out)
.print v(n_out)
.model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298
phi=0.688 lambda=0.03 ld=0.2u uo=600 tpg=1 rsh=40 js=0.753u nsub=8e15
cj=271u cjsw=600p mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.904 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
.model pmos pmos level=1 vto=-0.9 kp=34.5u tox=20n gamma=0.471
phi=0.730 lambda=0.06 ld=0.2u uo=200 tpg=-1 rsh=60 js=0.176u nsub=2e16
cj=423u cjsw=1.2n mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.928 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
.option method=trap maxord=2
.end

Cockpit error ?:)

What IS the 1V difference... bias differences, signal amplitude
differences... what?

Any error messages?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
Both bias and signal amplitude have 1v difference.
No error message.
 
On Apr 24, 12:16 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 06:58:39 -0700, phanic <efo...@gmail.com> wrote:





I use spice3f5 to simulate an operation amplifier (netlist is attached
below). I found the simulation results of spice3f5 are significantly
difference from that of HSPICE2003sp1 ( about 1v difference, both OP
and TRAN). What's the reason?

* op amp
M3 n_g_low n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M4 n_d n_g_low 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=140u
M6 n_out n_d 0 0 nmos l=0.8u w=135u
M1 n_g_low vin- n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M2 n_d vin+ n_source n_source pmos l=0.8u w=423u
M5 n_source n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=67u
M7 n_out n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=32u
M8 n_g_hi n_g_hi vdd vdd pmos l=0.8u w=2u
Rc n_d n_RC 200
Cc n_out n_RC 10p
Cload n_out 0 3p
Ibias n_g_hi 0 19u
Vdd vdd 0 5
Vin1 vin- 0 sin 2.5 10u 10
Vin2 vin+ 0 2.5
.op
.tran 0.1m 1
.probe v(n_out)
.print v(n_out)
.model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298
phi=0.688 lambda=0.03 ld=0.2u uo=600 tpg=1 rsh=40 js=0.753u nsub=8e15
cj=271u cjsw=600p mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.904 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
.model pmos pmos level=1 vto=-0.9 kp=34.5u tox=20n gamma=0.471
phi=0.730 lambda=0.06 ld=0.2u uo=200 tpg=-1 rsh=60 js=0.176u nsub=2e16
cj=423u cjsw=1.2n mj=0.5 mjsw=0.5 pb=0.928 cgso=692p cgdo=692p
.option method=trap maxord=2
.end

Cockpit error ?:)

What IS the 1V difference... bias differences, signal amplitude
differences... what?

Any error messages?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
Both bias and signal amplitude have 1v differnce.
There are no error messages.
 
On 22 Apr 2007 06:58:39 -0700, phanic <efo...@gmail.com> wrote:

.model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298
Click to expand...
I thought most sub-micron models used BSIM.
--
Svenn
 
On 30 Apr 2007 05:04:59 -0700, Svenn Are Bjerkem
<svenn.bjerkem@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 22 Apr 2007 06:58:39 -0700, phanic <efo...@gmail.com> wrote:

.model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298

I thought most sub-micron models used BSIM.
Click to expand...
Yes. BSIM3v2 and BSIM3v3 are the most common, but the "EKV" model is
coming into use fast.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
 
On Apr 30, 4:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 05:04:59 -0700, Svenn Are Bjerkem

svenn.bjer...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 06:58:39 -0700, phanic <efo...@gmail.com> wrote:

.model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298

I thought most sub-micron models used BSIM.

Yes. BSIM3v2 and BSIM3v3 are the most common, but the "EKV" model is
coming into use fast.
Click to expand...
I had a crash course in EKV with Eric Vittoz at EPFL. Thought it was
more a "hand-calculation" thing than a simulation model.

--
Svenn
 
On 3 May 2007 01:17:15 -0700, Svenn Are Bjerkem
<svenn.bjerkem@googlemail.com> wrote:

On Apr 30, 4:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2007 05:04:59 -0700, Svenn Are Bjerkem

svenn.bjer...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 06:58:39 -0700, phanic <efo...@gmail.com> wrote:

.model nmos nmos level=1 vto=0.7 kp=103.6u tox=20n gamma=0.298

I thought most sub-micron models used BSIM.

Yes. BSIM3v2 and BSIM3v3 are the most common, but the "EKV" model is
coming into use fast.

I had a crash course in EKV with Eric Vittoz at EPFL. Thought it was
more a "hand-calculation" thing than a simulation model.
Click to expand...
I've not used it yet, but the proponents are claiming performance
close to sliced bread ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top