Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh, you're the smart one!That's nice. How's your job at Linear Technologies going. Did they give you
a raise for your posting?
Then you should understand that LTSpice only does analog simulation. A realThat's nice. How's your job at Linear Technologies going. Did they give you
a raise for your posting?
Oh, you're the smart one!
I have never worked for LT, but I do use LT's parts, and LTSpice.
-Chuck
A real simulator? Spices are analog simulators by nature.Chuck Harris wrote:
That's nice. How's your job at Linear Technologies going. Did they give you
a raise for your posting?
Oh, you're the smart one!
I have never worked for LT, but I do use LT's parts, and LTSpice.
-Chuck
Then you should understand that LTSpice only does analog simulation. A real
simulator does mixed-mode (digital and analog). Have fun with your toy
simulator.
That's nice. How's your job at Linear Technologies going. Did they give you
a raise for your posting?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
simulator does mixed-mode (digital and analog). Have fun with your toy
simulator.
A real simulator? Spices are analog simulators by nature.
I'm having difficulty understanding why you would want to
throw digital in with an analog simulation.
Do tell!
-Chuck
FYI, just as many (perhaps even most, albeit with LTSpice as one significantUnlike SPICE, which is designed mainly for analog simulation, mixed-mode
simulators such as Multisim and CircuitLogix include both analog and event-
driven digital simulation capabilities in the same executable...
This all depends on what you want to do with the simulator. There areChuck Harris wrote:
That's nice. How's your job at Linear Technologies going. Did
they give you a raise for your posting?
Oh, you're the smart one!
I have never worked for LT, but I do use LT's parts, and LTSpice.
-Chuck
Then you should understand that LTSpice only does analog simulation.
A real simulator does mixed-mode (digital and analog). Have fun with
your toy simulator.
The only shill in this discussion is you, Stuart. You seem to have some: Eagle, LTSpice, and TINA? What is this......Losers anonymous? Those are the
: three worst simulators that have ever been built. At least LTSpice has the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: then get a job and then post messages. Until then you are just taking up
: valuable space.
*chuckle*
I'll be interested in your ranting when you post some benchmark
results comparing CircuitL*gix run times to LTSpice's. Also, please
post some *reasons* about why CircuitL*gix is better than LTSpice --
besides the purported VHDL ability, which doesn't even appear on their
website as far as I could tell.
Otherwise, you're just another CircuitL*gix shill, and a cranky
one at that.
Meanwhile, for educators looking for simulation software:
consider the full range of freeware and open-source options, including
CircuitL*gix. But remember why the different closed-source freeware
simulators are out there: most of them are some attempt at vendor
lock-in.
I'll now leave this thread unless one of you CircuitL*gix guys has
something quantifiable to say.
Stuart
Because you downloaded the student edition with a restricted licence.I downloaded the software and my wallet still has the same amount of money
as before I did the download, so I don't see how it cost me $249.
I agree. LTSpice is full featured and completely free.I understand that there is a full version for $249 with even more bells
and whistles, but what I downloaded for free from the CircuitLogix site is
better
than what I paid Multisim hundreds of dollars for last year. The free
download is great. Don't be a party-pooper, Ian. The best things in life
are free.
Wow. I had no idea I wasn't a real designer....The only shill in this discussion is you, Stuart. You seem to have some
weird obsession with LTSpice, which is a nice little simulator if all you
want to do is analog simulation. At least CircuitLogix and Multisim
provide
mixed-mode simulation, which is what real designers require. Why you are
afraid of a free simulation product is strange, to say the least.
In testing simulators, we ran some SPICE netlist tests on LTSpice,LTSpice is probably about the best converging spice on the market, and runs
around 3 times as fast. In my day job, I routinely run very long simulations
on high transistor count designs, and having something done in 1/2 day
verses two days would be a great bonus.
LTSpice is probably about the best converging spice on the market, and
runs
around 3 times as fast. In my day job, I routinely run very long
simulations
on high transistor count designs, and having something done in 1/2 day
verses two days would be a great bonus.
In testing simulators, we ran some SPICE netlist tests on LTSpice,
PSpice and Microcap. We had heard all the hype about LTSpice but the
simulation speeds in most of the netlists was a good deal slower than
both PSpice and Microcap. We were not running simulations with their
enhanced Linear models but just a few general circuit files though.
Perhaps if you use the SMPS capability with the Linear models, then it
is a fast simulator, or we just fluked into a few circuits that
LTSpice has problems with. Was not impressive though. Great price
however.
This is at odds with pretty much all prior benchmarks reported in this NGLTSpice is probably about the best converging spice on the market,
and runs around 3 times as fast. In my day job, I routinely run very
long simulations on high transistor count designs, and having
something done in 1/2 day verses two days would be a great bonus.
In testing simulators, we ran some SPICE netlist tests on LTSpice,
PSpice and Microcap. We had heard all the hype about LTSpice but the
simulation speeds in most of the netlists was a good deal slower than
both PSpice and Microcap.
Unfortunately, I think we were testing proprietary circuits since weHelmut
I am interested in your test circuits to for my own benchmarking.
Can you send me one of your test cases?
We kept all of the simulators on their default settings. The MaximumKevin
So... for example, did you manually try and set LT minimum time steps? Doing
so is not recommended. It will usually slow it down significantly. LT wants
to be run on automatic settings.
The point here is that you don't want to do that in LTSpice. It makes a BIGHelmut
I am interested in your test circuits to for my own benchmarking.
Can you send me one of your test cases?
Unfortunately, I think we were testing proprietary circuits since we
of course wanted to see how these simulators acted with our types of
circuits. They may have also tested some other netlists as well.
I'll check with the guy who ran all of these.
Kevin
So... for example, did you manually try and set LT minimum time
steps? Doing so is not recommended. It will usually slow it down
significantly. LT wants to be run on automatic settings.
We kept all of the simulators on their default settings. The Maximum
Time Step was typically set in the .tran statement.
Helmut,
I tried to post this information previously but it doesn't seem to
have taken. My coworker tried one more circuit from the list since
then.
We can't provide the original circuits we used, but we found some on
the web called MCNC which are supposed to be SPICE benchmark
circuits. The three simulators tested were PSpice Ver 9, Micro-Cap 9,
and LTSpice 2.20k. I know PSpice is an older version but the guys who
use it love it and don't want to upgrade to the creature that Cadence
has created. Both PSpice and Micro-Cap are professional versions not
student versions. For the system we did this on, both Micro-Cap and
LTSpice were fresh installs so everything was defaulted. We set
PSpice back to its default conditions as best we could. We chose
circuits randomly from the set while ignoring the huge ones since we
can't put too much time into this. In each simulator, we just loaded
the circuit and simulated. That's all. The results were:
SQRT.CIR
PSpice - 100.98s
Micro-Cap - 99.06s
LTSpice - 207.046s
AROM.CIR
PSpice - 8.11s
Micro-Cap - 4.41s
LTSpice - 10.25s
ADD32.CIR
PSpice - 609.53s
Micro-Cap - 868.70s
LTSpice - 1917.749s
MUX8.CIR
PSpice - 15.06s
Micro-Cap - 7.52s
LTSpice - 15.25s
I must be missing some setting to change in LTSpice but this is how it
installs.
Alex
Hello again,"engr4fun" <engr4fun@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1177697888.109817.109150@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Helmut,
I tried to post this information previously but it doesn't seem to
have taken. My coworker tried one more circuit from the list since
then.
We can't provide the original circuits we used, but we found some on
the web called MCNC which are supposed to be SPICE benchmark
circuits. The three simulators tested were PSpice Ver 9, Micro-Cap 9,
and LTSpice 2.20k. I know PSpice is an older version but the guys who
use it love it and don't want to upgrade to the creature that Cadence
has created. Both PSpice and Micro-Cap are professional versions not
student versions. For the system we did this on, both Micro-Cap and
LTSpice were fresh installs so everything was defaulted. We set
PSpice back to its default conditions as best we could. We chose
circuits randomly from the set while ignoring the huge ones since we
can't put too much time into this. In each simulator, we just loaded
the circuit and simulated. That's all. The results were:
SQRT.CIR
PSpice - 100.98s
Micro-Cap - 99.06s
LTSpice - 207.046s
AROM.CIR
PSpice - 8.11s
Micro-Cap - 4.41s
LTSpice - 10.25s
ADD32.CIR
PSpice - 609.53s
Micro-Cap - 868.70s
LTSpice - 1917.749s
MUX8.CIR
PSpice - 15.06s
Micro-Cap - 7.52s
LTSpice - 15.25s
I must be missing some setting to change in LTSpice but this is how it
installs.
Alex
Hello Alex,
There is a default setting of trtol=7 for PSPICE and Micro-Cap.
LTspice has the more precise default setting trtol=1.
LTspice will run about two times faster if trtol is rised from 1 to 7.
If I divide your numbers by this factor, LTspice looks as fast as PSPICE
and Micro-Cap
Please add the following SPICE-line to the netlists for a comparable
result.
.options trtol=7
I tried the same netlists on my PC with LTspice.
AMD64-4000+(2.4GHz), 2GB
Benchmark files: http://www.intusoft.com/models/MCNC.zip
SQRT.sp
trtol=1 142.3sec
trtol=7 70.2sec
AROM.sp
trtol=1 4.8sec
trtol=7 2.1sec
ADD32.sp
trtol=1 1110sec
trtol=7 768sec
trtol=6 706sec
trtol=5 720sec
MUX8.sp
trtol=1 7.3sec
trtol=7 3.7sec
Best regards,
Helmut
PS: I don't expect it would be faster with a 2.4GHz Core-2 Duo.
There is a reason for trtol=1 not 7! I get the same sort of speed up in my"engr4fun" <engr4fun@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1177697888.109817.109150@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Helmut,
I tried to post this information previously but it doesn't seem to
have taken. My coworker tried one more circuit from the list since
then.
We can't provide the original circuits we used, but we found some on
the web called MCNC which are supposed to be SPICE benchmark
circuits. The three simulators tested were PSpice Ver 9, Micro-Cap
9, and LTSpice 2.20k. I know PSpice is an older version but the
guys who use it love it and don't want to upgrade to the creature
that Cadence has created. Both PSpice and Micro-Cap are
professional versions not student versions. For the system we did
this on, both Micro-Cap and LTSpice were fresh installs so
everything was defaulted. We set PSpice back to its default
conditions as best we could. We chose circuits randomly from the
set while ignoring the huge ones since we can't put too much time
into this. In each simulator, we just loaded the circuit and
simulated. That's all. The results were: SQRT.CIR
PSpice - 100.98s
Micro-Cap - 99.06s
LTSpice - 207.046s
AROM.CIR
PSpice - 8.11s
Micro-Cap - 4.41s
LTSpice - 10.25s
ADD32.CIR
PSpice - 609.53s
Micro-Cap - 868.70s
LTSpice - 1917.749s
MUX8.CIR
PSpice - 15.06s
Micro-Cap - 7.52s
LTSpice - 15.25s
I must be missing some setting to change in LTSpice but this is how
it installs.
Alex
Hello Alex,
There is a default setting of trtol=7 for PSPICE and Micro-Cap.
LTspice has the more precise default setting trtol=1.
LTspice will run about two times faster if trtol is rised from 1 to 7.
If I divide your numbers by this factor, LTspice looks as fast as
PSPICE and Micro-Cap
Please add the following SPICE-line to the netlists for a comparable
result.
.options trtol=7
Helmut Sennewald wrote:
"engr4fun" <engr4fun@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1177697888.109817.109150@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Helmut,
I tried to post this information previously but it doesn't seem to
have taken. My coworker tried one more circuit from the list since
then.
We can't provide the original circuits we used, but we found some on
the web called MCNC which are supposed to be SPICE benchmark
circuits. The three simulators tested were PSpice Ver 9, Micro-Cap
9, and LTSpice 2.20k. I know PSpice is an older version but the
guys who use it love it and don't want to upgrade to the creature
that Cadence has created. Both PSpice and Micro-Cap are
professional versions not student versions. For the system we did
this on, both Micro-Cap and LTSpice were fresh installs so
everything was defaulted. We set PSpice back to its default
conditions as best we could. We chose circuits randomly from the
set while ignoring the huge ones since we can't put too much time
into this. In each simulator, we just loaded the circuit and
simulated. That's all. The results were: SQRT.CIR
PSpice - 100.98s
Micro-Cap - 99.06s
LTSpice - 207.046s
AROM.CIR
PSpice - 8.11s
Micro-Cap - 4.41s
LTSpice - 10.25s
ADD32.CIR
PSpice - 609.53s
Micro-Cap - 868.70s
LTSpice - 1917.749s
MUX8.CIR
PSpice - 15.06s
Micro-Cap - 7.52s
LTSpice - 15.25s
I must be missing some setting to change in LTSpice but this is how
it installs.
Alex
Hello Alex,
There is a default setting of trtol=7 for PSPICE and Micro-Cap.
LTspice has the more precise default setting trtol=1.
LTspice will run about two times faster if trtol is rised from 1 to 7.
If I divide your numbers by this factor, LTspice looks as fast as
PSPICE and Micro-Cap
Please add the following SPICE-line to the netlists for a comparable
result.
.options trtol=7
There is a reason for trtol=1 not 7! I get the same sort of speed up in my
XPSpice with trtol=7, however, I have found that this setting just does
not guarantee correct results in some circuits, especially my switching
power supply examples in SuperSpice, so I also have it defaulted to
trtol=1. Its not just an inaccuracy, its can give fundermenatlly wrong
results. Even trtol=2 is not enough for some circuits.
I would like to see the benchmarks run with trtol=1 for all simulators see
what the results are.
--
Kevin Aylward
ka@kevinaylward.co.uk