Ideal Development Machine Specifications

[Eric BATUT]

Hi <p>I'm sorry to post this question here, I just wasn't able to find a suitable answer elsewhere. <p>What is the actual (read : verifiable and/or presented in a report) gain in synthesis/p&amp;r/map times and general usability of the ISE toolchain that can be achieved from using a dual-CPU modern PC (read : 3 GHz Pentium IV running under WinXP Pro) ? <p>Is there actually something to gain from purchasing a second CPU (since the machine itself is bi-processorable) ? <p>The typical device targetted device during development is a XC2V6000, so RAM will have to be in the 2/3 Gb range, but I'm especially interested in the CPU issue : 1 or 2 ? <p>Thanks in advance to whoever might have an answer to this... <p>Eric

 

[Nial Stewart]

Eric,

I don't think any of the tools currently available
use the second processor for synth/P+R etc, but it
means you can do other things while the machine's
chomping away on your design.



Nial
------------------------------------------------
Nial Stewart Developments Ltd
FPGA and High Speed Digital Design
Cyclone PCI development/eval board
www.nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk

 

[John Adair]

I use dual processor machines running NT4/Win2000 with ISE. I have not
checked the latest version fully but with previous versions the dual
processor does not usually give greater performance on place and route. The
second processor is useful when you want to something else other than the
place and route. If you are running tools outside the graphical interface
then you can do 2 things. I often run two MPPRs simultaneously or run a MPPR
whilst using Timing Analyser on completed result.

If you are after performance for a XC2V6000 design then consider more
memory. Task manager will tell you how much is being used and if more would
be useful. Be careful though, I believe NT4/WIn2000(Workstation) has a 2GB
limit, I am not sure about XP limits. Linux can support more but I have not
run this OS so I can't say any more about it.

Look at your disk performance. Consider a RAID array if don't already have
one. Fast disk access will help a small bit.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.

This message is the personal opinion of the sender and not that necessarily
that of Enterpoint Ltd.. Readers should make their own evaluation of the
facts. No responsibility for error or inaccuracy is accepted.
"Eric BATUT" &lt;grostuba@ifrance.com&gt; wrote in message
news:ee81679.-1@WebX.sUN8CHnE...
Hi
I'm sorry to post this question here, I just wasn't able to find a suitable
answer elsewhere.
What is the actual (read : verifiable and/or presented in a report) gain in
synthesis/p&amp;r/map times and general usability of the ISE toolchain that can
be achieved from using a dual-CPU modern PC (read : 3 GHz Pentium IV running
under WinXP Pro) ?
Is there actually something to gain from purchasing a second CPU (since the
machine itself is bi-processorable) ?
The typical device targetted device during development is a XC2V6000, so RAM
will have to be in the 2/3 Gb range, but I'm especially interested in the
CPU issue : 1 or 2 ?
Thanks in advance to whoever might have an answer to this...
Eric

 

[Allan Herriman]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 02:30:30 -0800, "Eric BATUT" &lt;grostuba@ifrance.com&gt;
wrote:

Is there actually something to gain from purchasing a second CPU
(since the machine itself is bi-processorable) ?

The Xilinx tools are single threaded, but having two processors allows
you to run two instances of the Xilinx software at the same time.

This can halve the number of machines you need in your server farm,
which saves a lot of money, power and space.

In my current job, we have three designers running routes on one dual
processor server. This works quite well.

In my last job, we had (before the redundancies) about 25 designers
using about 10 machines in the server farm. Most of the servers could
handle two jobs at once. The fastest machines usually had one or two
jobs running; the slower ones were rarely used.

(Note: you'll need to have some custom software to allocate jobs to
servers. This is a lot easier if you don't use the Xilinx GUI.)


None of this will make much sense if you are a "one-person shop" with
only a single computer.

Regards,
Allan.

 

[B. Joshua Rosen]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:44:53 +1100, Allan Herriman wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 02:30:30 -0800, "Eric BATUT" &lt;grostuba@ifrance.com
wrote:

Is there actually something to gain from purchasing a second CPU
(since the machine itself is bi-processorable) ?

The Xilinx tools are single threaded, but having two processors allows
you to run two instances of the Xilinx software at the same time.

This can halve the number of machines you need in your server farm,
which saves a lot of money, power and space.

In my current job, we have three designers running routes on one dual
processor server. This works quite well.

In my last job, we had (before the redundancies) about 25 designers
using about 10 machines in the server farm. Most of the servers could
handle two jobs at once. The fastest machines usually had one or two
jobs running; the slower ones were rarely used.

(Note: you'll need to have some custom software to allocate jobs to
servers. This is a lot easier if you don't use the Xilinx GUI.)


None of this will make much sense if you are a "one-person shop" with
only a single computer.

Regards,
Allan.

Use Linux and you can take advantage of the second processor as well as
processors on other Linux systems. The -m switch to par allows you to do a
multi task run

-m = Multi task par run. File &lt;node list file&gt; ",
contains a list of node names on which to run the jobs. (This
option is not currently supported on WIN NT/WIN 95 systems).

 

[Nicholas C. Weaver]

In article &lt;ee81679.-1@WebX.sUN8CHnE&gt;, Eric BATUT &lt;grostuba@ifrance.com&gt; wrote:

Is there actually something to gain from purchasing a second CPU (since
the machine itself is bi-processorable) ?

Even if there is no gain from the toolflow time, there is often a huge
gain from a user-time, as now you can do ssh/email/web surfing while
your jobs are running.
--
Nicholas C. Weaver nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu

 

[Vinh Pham]

Even if there is no gain from the toolflow time, there is often a huge
gain from a user-time, as now you can do ssh/email/web surfing while
your jobs are running.
--
Nicholas C. Weaver nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu

I agree. Throw in a GeForce FX 5800 card, and it'll be truely an Ideal
machine :_)

 

[Nial Stewart]

Vinh Pham &lt;a@a.a&gt; wrote in message
news:ENLzb.15714$Kf2.4996@twister.socal.rr.com...

Even if there is no gain from the toolflow time, there is often a huge
gain from a user-time, as now you can do ssh/email/web surfing while
your jobs are running.
--
Nicholas C. Weaver
nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu

I agree. Throw in a GeForce FX 5800 card, and it'll be truely an Ideal
machine :_)

I'd rather have my Matrox dual head card with two big monitors,
I recon it makes me a fair bit more productive.


Nial.
------------------------------------------------
Nial Stewart Developments Ltd
FPGA and High Speed Digital Design
www.nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk

 

[Vinh Pham]

I'd rather have my Matrox dual head card with two big monitors,
I recon it makes me a fair bit more productive.

Yeah the extra desktop space is rather nice. Do you have LCD screens also
by chance?

 

[Nial Stewart]

Vinh Pham &lt;a@a.a&gt; wrote in message
news:TeXzb.33$R9.22@twister.socal.rr.com...

I'd rather have my Matrox dual head card with two big monitors,
I recon it makes me a fair bit more productive.

Yeah the extra desktop space is rather nice. Do you have LCD screens also
by chance?

Unfortunately not :-(

Although the price of a decent 17" screen's down to
just over Ł300, and the screen area is nearly as big
as my 21" monitor. The thinner surrounds would mean
there would be less breaking up the desktop too.

Matrox also do 4 monitor output graphics cards


Nial.

------------------------------------------------
Nial Stewart Developments Ltd
FPGA and High Speed Digital Design
www.nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk

 

[Vinh Pham]

Although the price of a decent 17" screen's down to
just over Ł300, and the screen area is nearly as big
as my 21" monitor.

Yeah considering 21" doesn't mean 21" of useful screen space, for CRTs.
LCDs are a bit more honest. They're easier on the eyes too.

Though getting cheaper still a bit pricey for me. I really hope they can
bring organic LED into high volume manufacturing.

The thinner surrounds would mean
there would be less breaking up the desktop too.

Yeah so not only more virutal desktop space, but more real desktop space. I
got enough junk on my desk already.

Matrox also do 4 monitor output graphics cards

LOL. I think your brain would mutate from the EM waves coming from those
CRTs ;_)

Regards,
Vinh


P.S. Sorry Eric, for going off topic here, but it seems everyone has given
you good advice already :_) In general sufficent RAM (to prevent the use
of virtual memory) is more useful in all situations, while a dual CPU will
only help when you do a lot of seedhunting or want to run another app while
routing.