Spartan3 availability

[Nial Stewart]

Not sure what you mean -- asking "how long have them been out" makes my
point. They're out.

I was making the point that you can hardly compare the
availablility of a mature product that's in full
production with one that's just being released, which
is what this thread's discussion has been about.

Why aren't you using 10KXXXs? They were available
years ago.

You can get them. Now.

You can get SpartanIIs. Now.

A better comparison will be to wait and see how Altera
handles the relase of CycloneII next year.

Nial.

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

 

[jerry1111]

I think it is more interesting that this thread has been discussed for a
full day now and no one from Xilinx has commented. Especially when one
poster mentioned rumors of yield issues. I would expect Xilinx to be
jumping all over that if it were just a rumor.

Seems like they have read your message.
Anyway, in my eyes they should respond without this little
help from you

And about availability: someone could get SW model of chip and work
with it for a year (till final version of code). Someone needs to put
this chip into excessive real-time testing - because there is NO
CHANCE to simulate my _whole_ design (where the fpga is the only one
component of system) - and this is the reason why I'm in need of
_real_ parts. Of course, these 'early' parts can be engineering
samples, not from full production (if I got the differences between
them).
I'm not using zilions of parts?
When I start to use such quantities, I'd go to asic world



--
Jerry

 

[tim colleran]

Let me set the record straight on the Cyclone front. Altera delivered
over 50,000 units of each device into customer and distribution partners
within the first 1-3 months of each device shipping. Devices
transitioned from ES to production in less than two months for each
device. Every single device shipped to customers ahead of the schedule
we that committed to customers via our announcements, our sales team and
www site. We are currently approaching the 1 millionth unit shipped in
the family. This in only 12 months from first silicon shipment. For the
record, that shipment is < 3 months ahead of first Spartan 3 shipment
(at least from public claims)

The bottom line is that all five devices in the family are in volume
production, available off the shelf to anyone who wants them.
Additionally, we have multiple customers taking thousands of units per
month. If you need low-cost FPGAs in any volume and regardless of the
size of your company, Cyclone is ready to go when you are.




Tim Colleran
Altera Corporation

 

[Patrick MacGregor]

Apparently you didn't know that Cyclone and Spartan 3 are contemporaries?
Both are new products just being released, and squarely aimed at low-cost
markets. Both were introduced to the public about the same time, to much
fanfare and to ambitious pricing and availability schedules.

The key difference is that Altera met or beat their advertised schedules,
whereas Xilinx has consistently missed their targets, and their schedules
continue to slip. You can buy a promise, or you can buy a part.

Again, you make my point by calling Cyclone a "mature product that's in full
production". Not bad for a product that is just being released. They've
done a pretty good job if you think of new Cyclone parts as "mature"
already. Altera is building a good track record regarding what they say and
what they actually deliver. Not perfect, as shown by their recent
backpeddling on some Stratix termination features, but still very, very
respectable.

Lastly, I expect I'll be able to get Cyclone 2 in production quantites long
before you ever see any Spartan 4's (or whatever they call the succesor to
S3), which is what they'll be competing against. Hopefully Cyclone 2 will
roll out as smoothly as Cyclone 1's did. The odds favor it.


"Nial Stewart" <nial@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fe4737c$0$11219$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk...

Not sure what you mean -- asking "how long have them been out" makes my
point. They're out.

I was making the point that you can hardly compare the
availablility of a mature product that's in full
production with one that's just being released, which
is what this thread's discussion has been about.

Why aren't you using 10KXXXs? They were available
years ago.

You can get them. Now.

You can get SpartanIIs. Now.

A better comparison will be to wait and see how Altera
handles the relase of CycloneII next year.

Nial.

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

 

[tbx135]

Xilinx has done this before with delivery dates...Nothing new, and yep, the
big customers get first dibs on everything. Spartan III is not on ship hold
and the typical ramp-ups that I saw all the way back to the 4K family are
issues again. Now I design a dual foot-print (if I can) or a integration
path to the wonderful new part promised to me by our vendor. So be patient
kids, Santa will show up with the goodies! The distributers are relaying
bullshit stories told to them by Xilinx, who, always get there with the
parts eventually.

 

[jerry1111]

Let me set the record straight on the Cyclone front. Altera delivered

That's why I'm using A-brand
Also I'm getting happy that Altera started monitoring this group.

--
Jerry

 

[Uwe Bonnes]

Patrick MacGregor <patrickmacgregor@comcast.net> wrote:
: Apparently you didn't know that Cyclone and Spartan 3 are contemporaries?
: Both are new products just being released, and squarely aimed at low-cost
: markets. Both were introduced to the public about the same time, to much
: fanfare and to ambitious pricing and availability schedules.

Cyclone was announced Sep 2002, Spartan April 2003. When where Cyclone
available from distributors?

Bye
--
Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

 

[Nial Stewart]

Apparently you didn't know that Cyclone and Spartan 3 are contemporaries?
Both are new products just being released, and squarely aimed at low-cost
markets.

Your dictionary must have a different definition of 'contemporary'
than mine.

Cyclone samples were available last February.

Altera is building a good track record regarding what they say and
what they actually deliver. Not perfect, as shown by their recent
backpeddling on some Stratix termination features, but still very, very
respectable.

I wouldn't argue with this.

The thread was about availability of devices which are _currently_
being released and you said you use Altera devices because you
can get devices which have been out for nearly a year.

The same argument could be used for Xilinx becasue SpartanIIs
are freely available.



Nial

 

[Ray Andraka]

The Altera parts still don't have a workable equivalent of the Xilinx SRL-16,
which can be used to huge advantage in DSP applications...if you code to it.
Otherwise, I'd agree.


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

 

[Mike Treseler]

Ray Andraka wrote:

The Altera parts still don't have a workable equivalent of the Xilinx SRL-16,
which can be used to huge advantage in DSP applications...if you code to it.
Otherwise, I'd agree.

What's the downside of using the stratix block memory shifters?

-- Mike Treseler

 

[Michael S]

Mike Treseler <mike.treseler@flukenetworks.com> wrote in message news:<3FE77A3C.9020805@flukenetworks.com>...

Ray Andraka wrote:
The Altera parts still don't have a workable equivalent of the Xilinx SRL-16,
which can be used to huge advantage in DSP applications...if you code to it.
Otherwise, I'd agree.

What's the downside of using the stratix block memory shifters?

-- Mike Treseler

May be, the fact that $tratix M512 blocks unavailable in the Cheaplon?

 

[Ray Andraka]

They don't make very dense DA LUTs for distributed arithmetic filters. The M512s
only give you 9 taps vs 4 with an SRL16, and there are a lot less of them than
LEs. They also don't help you for reloadable LUTs, which I use as a poor-man's
reconfiguration (I use SRL16's for the DA LUTs in xilinx to permit me to make a
reloadable DA filter, as well as for a DA adaptive filter).

The shifters work fine if it is just a shift register you are after, however the
power of the SRL16 is not so much the shift, but the ability to use them as a
reloadable LUT and for the dynamic shift, which is useful for reordering, for
instance in an FFT.

Mike Treseler wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote:
The Altera parts still don't have a workable equivalent of the Xilinx SRL-16,
which can be used to huge advantage in DSP applications...if you code to it.
Otherwise, I'd agree.

What's the downside of using the stratix block memory shifters?

-- Mike Treseler

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

 

[Michael S]

Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> wrote in message news:<3FE8CEB1.ECF2D342@andraka.com>...

They don't make very dense DA LUTs for distributed arithmetic filters. The M512s
only give you 9 taps vs 4 with an SRL16, and there are a lot less of them than
LEs. They also don't help you for reloadable LUTs, which I use as a poor-man's
reconfiguration (I use SRL16's for the DA LUTs in xilinx to permit me to make a
reloadable DA filter, as well as for a DA adaptive filter).

The shifters work fine if it is just a shift register you are after, however the
power of the SRL16 is not so much the shift, but the ability to use them as a
reloadable LUT and for the dynamic shift, which is useful for reordering, for
instance in an FFT.

Mike Treseler wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote:
The Altera parts still don't have a workable equivalent of the Xilinx SRL-16,
which can be used to huge advantage in DSP applications...if you code to it.
Otherwise, I'd agree.

What's the downside of using the stratix block memory shifters?

-- Mike Treseler

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

I don't follow you point about reloadability. How are M512 less
reloadable than SRL16? For me, they are more reloadable, in the sense
that unlike SRL16 M512 allows random-access reload.
The point about density is also questionable. In the absence of hard
data I would guess that one M512s is physically smaller than 20 SRL16
it replaces in DA applications.
Of course the point about moderate total amount of M512 vs. enormous
amount of SRL16 is hard to argue.

 

[Ray Andraka]

A DA LUT contains all the possible sums of the input taps, which for a serial filter is
one tap per address bit. As you increase the number of taps, the corresponding table size
grows exponentially. With LUTs, you get 4 taps per LUT (which you can do with LE's
provided you don't need to reload the LUTs). If you have to reload them, then using an
M512 only gives you 9 taps per M512, and each M512 is associated with a number of LABs,
each containing 10 LEs. Thus the density of a reloadable DA LUT using the DA_LUTs is
considerably lower than what you'd get if using LEs.

Yes, the M512 is reloadable, I am not disputing that. My point is that it is not a
substitute for reloadable LUTs in the LEs. The densities simply do not compare.



Michael S wrote:

Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> wrote in message news:<3FE8CEB1.ECF2D342@andraka.com>...
They don't make very dense DA LUTs for distributed arithmetic filters. The M512s
only give you 9 taps vs 4 with an SRL16, and there are a lot less of them than
LEs. They also don't help you for reloadable LUTs, which I use as a poor-man's
reconfiguration (I use SRL16's for the DA LUTs in xilinx to permit me to make a
reloadable DA filter, as well as for a DA adaptive filter).

The shifters work fine if it is just a shift register you are after, however the
power of the SRL16 is not so much the shift, but the ability to use them as a
reloadable LUT and for the dynamic shift, which is useful for reordering, for
instance in an FFT.

Mike Treseler wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote:
The Altera parts still don't have a workable equivalent of the Xilinx SRL-16,
which can be used to huge advantage in DSP applications...if you code to it.
Otherwise, I'd agree.

What's the downside of using the stratix block memory shifters?

-- Mike Treseler

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

I don't follow you point about reloadability. How are M512 less
reloadable than SRL16? For me, they are more reloadable, in the sense
that unlike SRL16 M512 allows random-access reload.
The point about density is also questionable. In the absence of hard
data I would guess that one M512s is physically smaller than 20 SRL16
it replaces in DA applications.
Of course the point about moderate total amount of M512 vs. enormous
amount of SRL16 is hard to argue.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

 

[Michael S]

Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> wrote in message news:<3FE9C209.66051EED@andraka.com>...

A DA LUT contains all the possible sums of the input taps, which for a serial filter is
one tap per address bit. As you increase the number of taps, the corresponding table size
grows exponentially. With LUTs, you get 4 taps per LUT (which you can do with LE's
provided you don't need to reload the LUTs). If you have to reload them, then using an
M512 only gives you 9 taps per M512, and each M512 is associated with a number of LABs,
each containing 10 LEs. Thus the density of a reloadable DA LUT using the DA_LUTs is
considerably lower than what you'd get if using LEs.

There are two possibilities:
1. I am totally clueless about DA.
2. You have never read Stratix datasheet and have no idea what is
M512.
Understandably, I prefer the 2nd option.

Nobody in his right mind will use M512 for DA in 512x1b configuration,
like you suggest. The natural configuration would be 32x16b or 32x18b.
In such configurations one M512 provides 25% more DA bandwidth than 16
(or 18, depending on required precision) SRL16 cells. So we can say
that one M512 replaces 20 (or 22.5) SRL16 cells. Additionally, each
shift-accumulate block is amortized over 25% more taps, providing
additional space saving.
Taking all this into account, I don't believe that M512 is less dense
than SRL16. Less available - probably yes, but not less dense.

 

[Ray Andraka]

I'm speaking of density on the device scale. I agree, if you look just at the M512, then you
have a denser filter than if you look at the equivalent number of LUTs. When you look at the
device scale, you don't have very many M512s relative to the number of LUTs. I am familiar with
the Stratix, and did a careful comparative analysis for one of the FPGA vendors between tbe
Stratix and Virtex architectures. That vendor also was not aware of all that could be done with
the SRL16.

Also, yes, you would use it in the widest configurations to get the most efficient use. As a
32x16 you are effectively equivalent to 30 SRL16s plus a 16 bit adder. With DA, you only use
one shift-accumulate after summing all of the partial products. In the limit, using SRL'16s you
use 2 LUTs per coefficient bit for every 4 taps (one lut for the DA LUT, one for part of your
partial adder). In equivalent terms, the M512 replaces about 46 LE's in a non-programmable DA
filter. Additionally, you'll still need your tap delays, which means either additional memories
or flip-flops in the LEs. My point is for a given marketing gate sized device, you can get a
considerably larger DA filter in a device with SRL16's than you can in a device with M512's at
the current M512 to LUT densities.

Michael S wrote:

Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> wrote in message news:<3FE9C209.66051EED@andraka.com>...
A DA LUT contains all the possible sums of the input taps, which for a serial filter is
one tap per address bit. As you increase the number of taps, the corresponding table size
grows exponentially. With LUTs, you get 4 taps per LUT (which you can do with LE's
provided you don't need to reload the LUTs). If you have to reload them, then using an
M512 only gives you 9 taps per M512, and each M512 is associated with a number of LABs,
each containing 10 LEs. Thus the density of a reloadable DA LUT using the DA_LUTs is
considerably lower than what you'd get if using LEs.


There are two possibilities:
1. I am totally clueless about DA.
2. You have never read Stratix datasheet and have no idea what is
M512.
Understandably, I prefer the 2nd option.

Nobody in his right mind will use M512 for DA in 512x1b configuration,
like you suggest. The natural configuration would be 32x16b or 32x18b.
In such configurations one M512 provides 25% more DA bandwidth than 16
(or 18, depending on required precision) SRL16 cells. So we can say
that one M512 replaces 20 (or 22.5) SRL16 cells. Additionally, each
shift-accumulate block is amortized over 25% more taps, providing
additional space saving.
Taking all this into account, I don't believe that M512 is less dense
than SRL16. Less available - probably yes, but not less dense.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

 

[Richard Temple]

jerry1111 <stop_this_spam_jerry1111_remove@remove.wp.pl> wrote in message news:<iga6uv87trtn31ftng213diohtdegv2d6m@4ax.com>...

Aye, but to be fair, how long has Cyclone been out now?

But you were able to buy small quantities early... not after
a year - IMHO.

Also, dont forget that the Cyclone performs better in benchmarking
than SpartanIII in terms of power and raw clock speed, despite not
being 90nm...

 

[Uwe Bonnes]

Richard Temple <rtemple@arrowuk.com> wrote:
: jerry1111 <stop_this_spam_jerry1111_remove@remove.wp.pl> wrote
: in message news:<iga6uv87trtn31ftng213diohtdegv2d6m@4ax.com>...
: > >Aye, but to be fair, how long has Cyclone been out now?
: >
: > But you were able to buy small quantities early... not after
: > a year - IMHO.

: Also, dont forget that the Cyclone performs better in benchmarking
: than SpartanIII in terms of power and raw clock speed, despite not
: being 90nm...

How can you judge power and raw clock speed of Spartan III, while the parts
are not available yet?

--
Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

 

[Ralph Malph]

Uwe Bonnes wrote:

Richard Temple <rtemple@arrowuk.com> wrote:
: jerry1111 <stop_this_spam_jerry1111_remove@remove.wp.pl> wrote
: in message news:<iga6uv87trtn31ftng213diohtdegv2d6m@4ax.com>...
: > >Aye, but to be fair, how long has Cyclone been out now?
:
: > But you were able to buy small quantities early... not after
: > a year - IMHO.

: Also, dont forget that the Cyclone performs better in benchmarking
: than SpartanIII in terms of power and raw clock speed, despite not
: being 90nm...

How can you judge power and raw clock speed of Spartan III, while the parts
are not available yet?

I thought that information was in all the press releases!