Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

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

Custom Search

Messages from 115650

Article: 115650
Subject: ModelSim EDK Sim Problem
From: "motty" <mottoblatto@yahoo.com>
Date: 15 Feb 2007 21:10:38 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I am using the latest greatest Windows install of ModelSim SE.  I have
compiled all the ISE and EDK simulation libraries using the tools in
command line mode.  That is another story all together, but the wizard
in the EDk did NOT work.  I kept getting errors.  Anyways, all the
libraries are compiled with NO errors.  I then ran the 'Generate
Simulation Files' in the EDk and everything finishes OK.  All the
files are created and placed in the simulation/behavioral directory.

The top level is system.v so I start ModelSim and change directories
to my EDK project/simulation/behavioral directory.  I then run 'do
system.do' at the ModelSim prompt.  It goes through the process and
reports everything OK.  Then I type in 'vsim system system_conf glbl'
from the ModelSim prompt.  It runs through the process and gives
errors.  The errors are given for my custom IP cores located in the
pcores directory.  These cores instantiate Xilinx primitives (FDCPE's,
DCM's, IDELAY's, etc) in their Verilog code.  The errors say that
those primitives are not defined.  An example is:

C:/<project directory>/pcores/clock_generator_v1_00_a/hdl/verilog/
dcm6x.v(76): Module 'DCM_ADV' is not defined.

It appears that ModelSim cannot resolve these back to the compiled
libraries.  Everything else is OK.  All the libraries are listed in
ModelSim's workspace window.  Is there something I am missing with
respect to using the custom IP cores?  Do I need to add a flag to the
vsim command?

Thanks!


Article: 115651
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org>
Date: 15 Feb 2007 22:22:50 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> work.  I can imagine that John J. may well also.  When you're aiming
> at 100+dB isolation among traces, you do have to be pretty careful,
> even at "low" frequencies.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

______________________________________

 Its all theory .   If its open , the RF will leak
  out .  Like the holes in a MicroWave dish
    ----------------
  10:1 SWR , open lines ,
   and NO radiation .
    -------------------
  Transmission lines repulse , but that
  does NOT mean magnetic fringing
  and sending mag flds everywhere .
    ----------------------

     BTW
 Study  CAT5e Ethernet cable .
          garbage !
  USB cables are much faster .


   I think ppl limit themselves to
 whats avail in PCB , then complain
 when it dont work , but if they'd
 experiment , they'd find the problem
 is using thin PCB .
    Then they limit on putting down
  100 transmission lines per mm .
  You cant learn , unless you experiment.

  you can't choke the dimensions
 and get good results , a transmission
 line needs exact dimensions , or you
 lose .

   In coax for 2.5 Ghz , for example ,
 it WILL have a large diameter and
 the center will have an exact dia and
 ratio ..  No substitutes .

  Sending signals that will be amplified
 use high Z ( ~65 ohms )  and
  sending power needs  low Z .
  These rules can't be bent .
   Thats what you're doin , is bending
   rules ...









.


Article: 115652
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org>
Date: 15 Feb 2007 22:26:30 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Feb 13, 7:51 am, John  Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:04 +1300, Jim Granville
>
>
>
>
>
> <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
> >werty wrote:
> >> On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a
>
> >>>>360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
> >>>>and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design
>
> >>>PCB
>
> >>>>tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
> >>>>possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,
>
> >>>anyway?
>
> >>>>Thanks for your help.
>
> >>>>Gero
>
> >>>Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
> >>>multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
> >>>sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.
>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>   Boxed !   the wavelength is far greater than
> >>  your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
> >>  exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
> >>     When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
> >>   you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
> ><snip>
>
> >Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of  expertise ?
>
> >  Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
> >and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
> >is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
> >  Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
> >and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
> >experience
>
> >I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
> >only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
> >this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.
>
> >-jg
>
> I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer
> board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display
> drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.
>
> John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

____________________________________

 You are hoping that we believe switchers
 cause lots of noise ....

   Zero ripple is what switchers do !
 The sudden pulse of current is only
 around a very short loop , it does
  not cause noise .
   They dont even have "ground loops"






Article: 115653
Subject: Re: Loss Diagram
From: "Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempovski@arcor.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:01:13 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schrieb im 
Newsbeitrag news:fkt8t25shgq88ejbi56j4ubcaahnlntp3c@4ax.com...
>
> But FR-4 varies a lot, so there's no definitive data.
>
> What are you trying to do?
>

Hi John, I'm trying to compare several loss tangent values (I think that's 
the decisive parameter..!?) from several materials, FR4-, PE, etc. over the 
frequency. But it's hard to find such diagrams. 



Article: 115654
Subject: Re: Need fair opinions on choosing either Altera or Xilinx as main FPGA source
From: rickystickyrick@hotmail.com
Date: 15 Feb 2007 23:20:27 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> Do you have Lattice tools there ?

I'd also suggest taking a look at Lattice and the new ECP2M parts.

Ricky.


Article: 115655
Subject: Re: Do you like Virtex-5 ?
From: rickystickyrick@hotmail.com
Date: 15 Feb 2007 23:30:35 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Am I the only one who finds him tiring?

I guess it would be funny if I wasn't using so many Xilinx parts.

Ricky.

On Feb 15, 6:10 pm, Austin <aus...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Well, that is odd, because we have ES material in stock (for V5).
>
> In the V5 program, we have met, or met early every public date we gave.
>
> After the V4 issues with FX MGT, we promised ourselves to never do that,
> ever.  Never.  Ever.  So, if you are with-holding your vote because of
> your V4FX experience, we apologise, and promise to do much better (and
> are doing much better).
>
> Peter and I have personally helped a few folks get their hands on their
> V5 ES parts, when it seemed that the distributors had failed them.  If
> your distributor has failed you, we want to know.
>
> As to who you want to vote for, you can always vote (in another beauty
> contest) for the "most innovative product in 2006 -- the Stratix III."
> (Note, quotes are from a press release!).  That is a good one:  the
> product will sample in September, 2007....
>
> Of course, it is a free Internet, and the chip you should vote for is
> the one that best fit the criteria as you decide.
>
> Austin



Article: 115656
Subject: Re: Athlon X2 or Intel Dual Core for Xilinx ISE tools ?
From: David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:54:47 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
spartan3wiz wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:03 pm, David Brown <d...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> Nico Coesel wrote:
>>> "llandre" <llan...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>> In this message
>>>> http://groups.google.it/group/comp.arch.fpga/browse_thread/thread/4b6...
>>>> Josh Rosen provided detailed information about comparative performance
>>>> tests he made (see alsohttp://www.polybus.com/linux_hardware/
>>>> index.htm).
>>>> When he posted that message AMD processors were definitively the best
>>>> choiche. Did something changed since then? Have Intel processors
>>>> released in the meanwhile filled the gap?
>>> Based on 10 years of experience I recommend to stay away from AMD
>>> based system for any serious computing. AMD based systems are low
>>> budget systems based on crappy chipsets and crappy components and
>>> because of that they lack a very important feature: stability. I've
>>> never seen an AMD based system survive a day in the office without
>>> crashing. Most people will tell you their AMD system _at home_ works
>>> perfectly. But tell me, is a PC at home used extensively for 10 hours
>>> straight? I don't think so.
>> That may have had some merit as an argument 10 years ago, but it is
>> totally at odds with most people's experiences since then.  AMD has been
>> the manufacturer of choice for serious computing since the Opteron's
>> first came out - again and again, they have given more powerful and
>> scalable than Intel's solutions, and the processors left stability
>> problems behind with the K6 generation.  There have been issues with
>> heat - many of AMD's chips in the last five years have run particularly
>> hot, and if you buy a cheap system then it's cooling system might not be
>> good enough.  And if you want to talk about motherboard and chipset
>> issues, then Intel has far outweight AMD for problems in recent years -
>> mostly because, until the Core 2, it has been rushing out everything it
>> can in hopes of competing with AMD.
>>
>> In my own experience, I have picked AMD on almost every occasion in the
>> last fifteen years - first purely for value for money, and later for
>> reliability as well.  Were I buying a new machine today, I would
>> probably go for a Dual Core 2, simply because of better value for money
>> at the moment, although for a server I might pick AMD for stability (and
>> for a four-core or more machine, AMD is the only realistic choice).
>>
>> If your machines crash after a day at the office, you are doing
>> something terribly wrong, and the processor is the least of your
>> worries.  Most of the machines I use and administer, at home and at the
>> office, are AMD's, and most of them are never turned off.  I have a
>> server here at the office with a 300 MHz AMD K6 that has been running
>> for around 8 years, and has only been off a half-dozen times for power
>> cuts and a replacement power supply (this is probably a world record for
>> NT 4.0).
>>
>> And in the world of gaming, people run their machines for much longer
>> than 10 hours at a time, and often with more demanding loads than any
>> professional use - they generally choose AMD.
>>
>> There is a reason why AMD captured a large proportion of the server
>> market, especially for multi-core systems, despite Intel's entrenchment
>> (and illegal and/or unethical behaviour, for which they are currently on
>> trial).
>>
>>> If you want a computer get an Intel cpu based professional workstation
>>> from the business section from Dell or HP. You'll probably notice the
>>> price difference between the computer shop around the corner, but
>>> believe me, the price difference is worth having a PC that just works
>>> fine every day. Large companies buy PCs like these by the thousands
>>> for a good reason: a PC which doesn't work/crashes costs a lot of
>>> money.
>> This is a totally different issue.  If you want a reliable machine, be
>> prepared to spend money on it and get it from a reliable supplier.  No
>> one will argue with that.  Don't buy AMD processors because they are
>> cheap - buy the appropriate chip for the job.
> 
> There is a major risk for me missing the point here, but I'll give it
> ago anyway! The original question takled about the ISE and Dual
> Cores.... why would you need Dual Core for ISE? It does never use more
> than one of them anyway! OK it'll give your windows/Linux better
> response for other things while running ISE but it will NOT speed up
> the actual Synthesis+P&R action. Have any of you guys had ANY luck
> with using the "second" one within ISE? Maybe someone from Xilinx care
> to answer. If my memory serves me Xilinx made a statement that the ISE
> 8.1 would add support for Dual-Cores when running the tools. OK i
> gogled for that too.. http://www.eeproductcenter.com/pld-fpga/
> showArticle.jhtml?articleID=174918452
> 
> I did NOT notice any improvement between 7.1 and 8.1 using my AMD
> 3800+ X2 when building a bigger project (a big project for me is a
> project that fills my S3 StarterKit 200K). It actually got slower! And
> now in ISE 9.1 (webpack) I did not see any signs of the normal ISE
> toolchain having any support at all for Dual Cores? I did a more
> through post here: http://www.journalforums.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?
> act=ST;f=1;t=57
> that you can read and comment on here in this newsgroup.
> 

The Intel Dual Core 2 chips are about the fastest available cpus at the 
moment, at least for sensible prices.  I've heard several times that 
fpga tools like larger caches, which these chips have.  The fact that 
you have two cores is almost incidental for ISE at the moment.  However, 
there are always a few things going on in the background while waiting 
for a place and route - the second core can save you as much as a step 
up in clock speed even if you are not using the computer for anything 
else.  There is also the future to look to - Quartus now has partial 
parallelism, and can use two cores for part of the work.  It might only 
save something like 10-20% time at the moment, but we can look forward 
to competition between X and A in the race to get more parallelism out 
of their tools.



Article: 115657
Subject: Lattice / M-LVDS
From: Metin <metinnn@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:14:10 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi there,

I've heard that some Lattice FPGAs support M-LVDS signalling.

Did anyone has any experience with lattice M-LVDS? Are they true M-LVDS driver/receivers? What are the deviations from the TIA/EIA-899 specification? Finally are They current-mode drivers?

Thanks.

Article: 115658
Subject: Re: Do you like Virtex-5 ?
From: Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:44:36 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Tim <tim@nooospam.roockyloogic.com> wrote:

> If you, or anyone else in Xilinx, would like to improve matters, could 
> you please publish a comprehensive price and availability list for the 
> various families. Then the poor old working engineer can make a 
> cost/benefit/risk analysis - after all, that's what you want your 
> customers to do before setting forth on designs.

To get an idea what information is needed, take a look at the Texas
Instruments webpage and go to a particular device, like the just announced
ADS5231 and follow the links to the part to reach e.g.
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/ads5231.html

You find
- package option
- budget price
- Inventory
- Lead time
- distributors (if any yet)
- and a sample request entry
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

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

Article: 115659
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:22:42 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 15 Feb 2007 22:26:30 -0800, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> Gave us:

>On Feb 13, 7:51 am, John  Larkin
><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:04 +1300, Jim Granville
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
>> >werty wrote:
>> >> On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>>"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a
>>
>> >>>>360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
>> >>>>and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design
>>
>> >>>PCB
>>
>> >>>>tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
>> >>>>possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,
>>
>> >>>anyway?
>>
>> >>>>Thanks for your help.
>>
>> >>>>Gero
>>
>> >>>Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
>> >>>multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
>> >>>sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.
>>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >>   Boxed !   the wavelength is far greater than
>> >>  your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
>> >>  exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
>> >>     When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
>> >>   you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of  expertise ?
>>
>> >  Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
>> >and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
>> >is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
>> >  Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
>> >and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
>> >experience
>>
>> >I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
>> >only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
>> >this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.
>>
>> >-jg
>>
>> I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer
>> board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display
>> drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.
>>
>> John- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>____________________________________
>
> You are hoping that we believe switchers
> cause lots of noise ....
>
>   Zero ripple is what switchers do !
> The sudden pulse of current is only
> around a very short loop , it does
>  not cause noise .
>   They dont even have "ground loops"
>
>

  We cannot use switchers to feed to rails on our 2 to 12 GHz designs.
NOISE CAN AND DOES get injected into such systems BY SWITCHING POWER
SUPPLIES.

  YOU may not be aware of it, but those of us that work in such bands
are aware of high frequency switching noise, and it DOES show up under
spectrum analysis.

  Your brain has a ground loop.

Article: 115660
Subject: Re: Athlon X2 or Intel Dual Core for Xilinx ISE tools ?
From: "llandre" <llandre@libero.it>
Date: 16 Feb 2007 04:04:10 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> >Cores.... why would you need Dual Core for ISE? It does never use more
> >than one of them anyway!
>
> Because the fast (2.4GHz and above) Core 2 Duo chips get you 4MB of
> level-2 cache which, if you're using ISE on only one core and not
> doing anything very intensive in the background, is all available to
> the ISE process.  Given how much of a boost people saw with 1MB-cache
> versus 512k-cache AMD chips, and how memory-intensive FPGA compilation
> is, I would expect 4MB to be distinctly useful.

Also the machine I'm going to buy will be occasionally used by two
people working on two different FPGA projects at the same time. Since
they will run two different ISE istances, I expect they will be
benefit from the dual core cpu. Is this speculation reasonable?


Article: 115661
Subject: Re: Athlon X2 or Intel Dual Core for Xilinx ISE tools ?
From: General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com>
Date: 16 Feb 2007 12:46:08 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:54:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:

> spartan3wiz wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 1:03 pm, David Brown <d...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Nico Coesel wrote:
>>>> "llandre" <llan...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>> In this message
>>>>> http://groups.google.it/group/comp.arch.fpga/browse_thread/thread/4b6...
>>>>> Josh Rosen provided detailed information about comparative performance
>>>>> tests he made (see alsohttp://www.polybus.com/linux_hardware/
>>>>> index.htm).
>>>>> When he posted that message AMD processors were definitively the best
>>>>> choiche. Did something changed since then? Have Intel processors
>>>>> released in the meanwhile filled the gap?
>>>> Based on 10 years of experience I recommend to stay away from AMD
>>>> based system for any serious computing. AMD based systems are low
>>>> budget systems based on crappy chipsets and crappy components and
>>>> because of that they lack a very important feature: stability. I've
>>>> never seen an AMD based system survive a day in the office without
>>>> crashing. Most people will tell you their AMD system _at home_ works
>>>> perfectly. But tell me, is a PC at home used extensively for 10 hours
>>>> straight? I don't think so.
>>> That may have had some merit as an argument 10 years ago, but it is
>>> totally at odds with most people's experiences since then.  AMD has been
>>> the manufacturer of choice for serious computing since the Opteron's
>>> first came out - again and again, they have given more powerful and
>>> scalable than Intel's solutions, and the processors left stability
>>> problems behind with the K6 generation.  There have been issues with
>>> heat - many of AMD's chips in the last five years have run particularly
>>> hot, and if you buy a cheap system then it's cooling system might not be
>>> good enough.  And if you want to talk about motherboard and chipset
>>> issues, then Intel has far outweight AMD for problems in recent years -
>>> mostly because, until the Core 2, it has been rushing out everything it
>>> can in hopes of competing with AMD.
>>>
>>> In my own experience, I have picked AMD on almost every occasion in the
>>> last fifteen years - first purely for value for money, and later for
>>> reliability as well.  Were I buying a new machine today, I would
>>> probably go for a Dual Core 2, simply because of better value for money
>>> at the moment, although for a server I might pick AMD for stability (and
>>> for a four-core or more machine, AMD is the only realistic choice).
>>>
>>> If your machines crash after a day at the office, you are doing
>>> something terribly wrong, and the processor is the least of your
>>> worries.  Most of the machines I use and administer, at home and at the
>>> office, are AMD's, and most of them are never turned off.  I have a
>>> server here at the office with a 300 MHz AMD K6 that has been running
>>> for around 8 years, and has only been off a half-dozen times for power
>>> cuts and a replacement power supply (this is probably a world record for
>>> NT 4.0).
>>>
>>> And in the world of gaming, people run their machines for much longer
>>> than 10 hours at a time, and often with more demanding loads than any
>>> professional use - they generally choose AMD.
>>>
>>> There is a reason why AMD captured a large proportion of the server
>>> market, especially for multi-core systems, despite Intel's entrenchment
>>> (and illegal and/or unethical behaviour, for which they are currently on
>>> trial).
>>>
>>>> If you want a computer get an Intel cpu based professional workstation
>>>> from the business section from Dell or HP. You'll probably notice the
>>>> price difference between the computer shop around the corner, but
>>>> believe me, the price difference is worth having a PC that just works
>>>> fine every day. Large companies buy PCs like these by the thousands
>>>> for a good reason: a PC which doesn't work/crashes costs a lot of
>>>> money.
>>> This is a totally different issue.  If you want a reliable machine, be
>>> prepared to spend money on it and get it from a reliable supplier.  No
>>> one will argue with that.  Don't buy AMD processors because they are
>>> cheap - buy the appropriate chip for the job.
>> 
>> There is a major risk for me missing the point here, but I'll give it
>> ago anyway! The original question takled about the ISE and Dual
>> Cores.... why would you need Dual Core for ISE? It does never use more
>> than one of them anyway! OK it'll give your windows/Linux better
>> response for other things while running ISE but it will NOT speed up
>> the actual Synthesis+P&R action. Have any of you guys had ANY luck
>> with using the "second" one within ISE? Maybe someone from Xilinx care
>> to answer. If my memory serves me Xilinx made a statement that the ISE
>> 8.1 would add support for Dual-Cores when running the tools. OK i
>> gogled for that too.. http://www.eeproductcenter.com/pld-fpga/
>> showArticle.jhtml?articleID=174918452
>> 
>> I did NOT notice any improvement between 7.1 and 8.1 using my AMD
>> 3800+ X2 when building a bigger project (a big project for me is a
>> project that fills my S3 StarterKit 200K). It actually got slower! And
>> now in ISE 9.1 (webpack) I did not see any signs of the normal ISE
>> toolchain having any support at all for Dual Cores? I did a more
>> through post here: http://www.journalforums.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?
>> act=ST;f=1;t=57
>> that you can read and comment on here in this newsgroup.
>> 
> 
> The Intel Dual Core 2 chips are about the fastest available cpus at the 
> moment, at least for sensible prices.  I've heard several times that 
> fpga tools like larger caches, which these chips have.  The fact that 
> you have two cores is almost incidental for ISE at the moment.  However, 
> there are always a few things going on in the background while waiting 
> for a place and route - the second core can save you as much as a step 
> up in clock speed even if you are not using the computer for anything 
> else.  There is also the future to look to - Quartus now has partial 
> parallelism, and can use two cores for part of the work.  It might only 
> save something like 10-20% time at the moment, but we can look forward 
> to competition between X and A in the race to get more parallelism out 
> of their tools.

PAR in the Xilinx tools has been multithreaded for years as long as
you run it on a *nix system.

Article: 115662
Subject: Re: Do you like Virtex-5 ?
From: acher@in.tum.de (Georg Acher)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:12:14 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Tim <tim@nooospam.roockyloogic.com> writes:

>If you think I'm exaggerating, try the Avnet site:
<...>
>Spartan-3E parts: prototype parts only and no higher volume pricing

And funny enough, Avnet gave us a first price estimation for quantity 1000 of an
1600E higher than the prototype price in their webshop. I don't know what they
are smoking...

-- 
         Georg Acher, acher@in.tum.de
         http://www.lrr.in.tum.de/~acher
         "Oh no, not again !" The bowl of petunias

Article: 115663
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:34:00 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 2007-02-16, werty <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

>      BTW
>  Study  CAT5e Ethernet cable .
>           garbage !
>   USB cables are much faster .
>
>
>    I think ppl limit themselves to
>  whats avail in PCB , then complain
>  when it dont work , but if they'd
>  experiment , they'd find the problem
>  is using thin PCB .
>     Then they limit on putting down
>   100 transmission lines per mm .
>   You cant learn , unless you experiment.

Shite man, what are you using for a computer, a 40-column
Commodore PET?

[...]

>   Sending signals that will be amplified
>  use high Z ( ~65 ohms )  and
>   sending power needs  low Z .
>   These rules can't be bent .
>    Thats what you're doin , is bending
>    rules ...

Even a PET wouldn't explain the random indentation.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Remember, in 2039,
                                  at               MOUSSE & PASTA will
                               visi.com            be available ONLY by
                                                   prescription!!

Article: 115664
Subject: Re: Athlon X2 or Intel Dual Core for Xilinx ISE tools ?
From: Andreas Ehliar <ehliar@lysator.liu.se>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:34:30 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 2007-02-16, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PAR in the Xilinx tools has been multithreaded for years as long as
> you run it on a *nix system.

Are you thinking about the -m option to par? Because that is really only
useful if you need to run par several times on a design and pick the best
design as far as I understand it.  So you will not really speed up par
but you might get a little better results out of it.

According to the documentation only the cost table entry is varied for
each run so you should be able to do essentially the same thing in Windows
by running par with different -t options on a number of Windows machines.

/Andreas

Article: 115665
Subject: Has anyone gotten the GSRD to run from Ace CF?
From: "Dave H" <davehays@hotmail.com>
Date: 16 Feb 2007 07:51:11 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I can build other designs and have them work using the ACE CF, however
the GSRD does not seem to kick off the software application.  I'm very
frustrated - is there an issue loading the external ddram through the
mpmc?  I'm using gsrd v7.1 w/edk 7.1

Any ideas?


Article: 115666
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: John Devereux <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:13:29 +0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:

> On 2007-02-16, werty <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:
>
>>      BTW
>>  Study  CAT5e Ethernet cable .
>>           garbage !
>>   USB cables are much faster .
>>
>>
>>    I think ppl limit themselves to
>>  whats avail in PCB , then complain
>>  when it dont work , but if they'd
>>  experiment , they'd find the problem
>>  is using thin PCB .
>>     Then they limit on putting down
>>   100 transmission lines per mm .
>>   You cant learn , unless you experiment.
>
> Shite man, what are you using for a computer, a 40-column
> Commodore PET?
>
> [...]
>
>>   Sending signals that will be amplified
>>  use high Z ( ~65 ohms )  and
>>   sending power needs  low Z .
>>   These rules can't be bent .
>>    Thats what you're doin , is bending
>>    rules ...
>
> Even a PET wouldn't explain the random indentation.

And the random word and punctuation spacing. Some kind of mobile
phone? The Microsoft Word Usenet Export Filter?

I think it's the usenet equivalent of green ink.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink>


-- 

John Devereux

Article: 115667
Subject: Re: Loss Diagram
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:18:19 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:01:13 +0100, "Geronimo Stempovski"
<geronimo.stempovski@arcor.de> wrote:

>
>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schrieb im 
>Newsbeitrag news:fkt8t25shgq88ejbi56j4ubcaahnlntp3c@4ax.com...
>>
>> But FR-4 varies a lot, so there's no definitive data.
>>
>> What are you trying to do?
>>
>
>Hi John, I'm trying to compare several loss tangent values (I think that's 
>the decisive parameter..!?) from several materials, FR4-, PE, etc. over the 
>frequency. But it's hard to find such diagrams. 
>

No, what are you trying to *do*? WHY do you want a "coax on a pc
board"?

John


Article: 115668
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:22:26 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 2007-02-16, John Devereux <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:
> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:
>
>> On 2007-02-16, werty <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:
>>
>>>      BTW
>>>  Study  CAT5e Ethernet cable .
>>>           garbage !
>>>   USB cables are much faster .
>>>
>>>
>>>    I think ppl limit themselves to
>>>  whats avail in PCB , then complain
>>>  when it dont work , but if they'd
>>>  experiment , they'd find the problem
>>>  is using thin PCB .
>>>     Then they limit on putting down
>>>   100 transmission lines per mm .
>>>   You cant learn , unless you experiment.
>>
>> Shite man, what are you using for a computer, a 40-column
>> Commodore PET?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>   Sending signals that will be amplified
>>>  use high Z ( ~65 ohms )  and
>>>   sending power needs  low Z .
>>>   These rules can't be bent .
>>>    Thats what you're doin , is bending
>>>    rules ...
>>
>> Even a PET wouldn't explain the random indentation.
>
> And the random word and punctuation spacing. Some kind of mobile
> phone? The Microsoft Word Usenet Export Filter?
>
> I think it's the usenet equivalent of green ink.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink>

I love it!  I'd never heard the phrase "green ink" before. It's
a keeper.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Now, I think it would
                                  at               be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX
                               visi.com            STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for
                                                   ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!

Article: 115669
Subject: Re: Do you like Virtex-5 ?
From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Date: 16 Feb 2007 17:36:29 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
George Acher posted on Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:12:14 +0000 (UTC):

"And funny enough, Avnet gave us a first price estimation for quantity 1000 of a
n
1600E higher than the prototype price in their webshop. I don't know what they
are smoking..."

I checked the price of a component (not an F.P.G.A. though) we needed
on a few websites in December 2006. One of them was Avnet's and
Avnet's website had the engineering (prototype, commercial quality)
model priced at $11122.80 whereas Avnet's website had the radiation
hardened space qualified (better quality) version priced much less at
$3738. I performed this search due to miscommunication: we had
actually already bought the radiation hardened version before December
for far less than $5000 (though I do not know for how much exactly,
nor from whom).

Article: 115670
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:42:51 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 15 Feb 2007 22:22:50 -0800, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

>   In coax for 2.5 Ghz , for example ,
> it WILL have a large diameter and
> the center will have an exact dia and
> ratio ..  No substitutes .

Never heard of micro hardline, I guess. Or non-TEM propagation modes
in large-diameter coax.

John



Article: 115671
Subject: Re: Building Coaxial transmission line on PCB?
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:44:19 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 15 Feb 2007 22:26:30 -0800, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

>On Feb 13, 7:51 am, John  Larkin
><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:04 +1300, Jim Granville
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
>> >werty wrote:
>> >> On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>>"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a
>>
>> >>>>360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
>> >>>>and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design
>>
>> >>>PCB
>>
>> >>>>tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
>> >>>>possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,
>>
>> >>>anyway?
>>
>> >>>>Thanks for your help.
>>
>> >>>>Gero
>>
>> >>>Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
>> >>>multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
>> >>>sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.
>>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >>   Boxed !   the wavelength is far greater than
>> >>  your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
>> >>  exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
>> >>     When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
>> >>   you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of  expertise ?
>>
>> >  Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
>> >and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
>> >is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
>> >  Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
>> >and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
>> >experience
>>
>> >I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
>> >only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
>> >this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.
>>
>> >-jg
>>
>> I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer
>> board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display
>> drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.
>>
>> John- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>____________________________________
>
> You are hoping that we believe switchers
> cause lots of noise ....
>
>   Zero ripple is what switchers do !
> The sudden pulse of current is only
> around a very short loop , it does
>  not cause noise .
>   They dont even have "ground loops"
>
>
>
>

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.

John


Article: 115672
Subject: Re: Do you like Virtex-5 ?
From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Date: 16 Feb 2007 17:49:30 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jim Granville posted on Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:56:22 +1300:
          
"Peter Alfke wrote:

> Do you like Virtex-5 ? Then please vote for it...
>
> The editors of Electronic Design News think Virtex-5 is an innovative
> product;
> they have nominated for their 17th Annual EDN Innovation Awards:
>
>  the Xilinx Virtex-5 Design Team for "Innovator of the Year," and
>
>  the Virtex-5 LXT platform for "Innovation of the Year" (in the
> Digital ICs category)
>
[..]
  They also miss a [none of the above] vote, so readers cannot indicate
if they agree with the shortlists."

A very good point.

"Digital ICs, programmable logic, and memory:
  PEX 8548 PCI Express switch (PLX Technology)
  MR2A16A MRAM (Freescale)
  Virtex-5 LXT FPGAs (Xilinx)

and since the award is for innovation :

Adj.
1. innovative - ahead of the times;
2. innovative - being or producing something like nothing done or
experienced or created before;

then the clear winner (by a large margin) is the MRAM.

That's far closer to innovative than "another iteration in FPGAs" ?"

Nah, the concept of randomness was mentioned hundreds of years ago but
called "chaos".

It would be great to have Jim Granville as a reviewer for what passes
as research in Europe: I attended doctoral workshops here in which
many of the abstracts were written with the word "innovative" or
"novel" to describe something which is a minor adaptation of existing
work, and many of the abstracts were written as if it is amazing that
civilization even managed to survive before the brilliant Ph.D. candidate
managed to come up with something which will supposedly change the
world.

Sincerely,
Colin Paul Gloster

Article: 115673
Subject: Re: Loss Diagram
From: "Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempovski@arcor.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:58:54 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schrieb im 
Newsbeitrag >
> No, what are you trying to *do*? WHY do you want a "coax on a pc
> board"?
>

Ah, okay, what I am actually trying to find out is what makes FR4 act worse 
than e.g. teflon at data rates beyond 2,5 Gbps. Is it the loss tangent or 
the epsilon r? How is the frequency-dependent attenuation physically 
describable? Where does the energy go? Heat, ...? It was my opinion that 
higher frequencies can be transmitted over coax but not over FR4 because of 
the geometry. Because in a coax there is (almost) no energy loss because the 
TEM wave is "captured" by the outer shield and in a planar setup like 
stripline or microstrip there are E-field and H-field lines vanish into the 
air environment (or somewhere else...). Therefore I'm trying to design a 
coax on a PCB. Am I right with my thoughts, anyway? 



Article: 115674
Subject: Re: Loss Diagram
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:14:41 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:58:54 +0100, "Geronimo Stempovski"
<geronimo.stempovski@arcor.de> wrote:

>
>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schrieb im 
>Newsbeitrag >
>> No, what are you trying to *do*? WHY do you want a "coax on a pc
>> board"?
>>
>
>Ah, okay, what I am actually trying to find out is what makes FR4 act worse 
>than e.g. teflon at data rates beyond 2,5 Gbps. Is it the loss tangent or 
>the epsilon r? How is the frequency-dependent attenuation physically 
>describable? Where does the energy go? Heat, ...? It was my opinion that 
>higher frequencies can be transmitted over coax but not over FR4 because of 
>the geometry. Because in a coax there is (almost) no energy loss because the 
>TEM wave is "captured" by the outer shield and in a planar setup like 
>stripline or microstrip there are E-field and H-field lines vanish into the 
>air environment (or somewhere else...). Therefore I'm trying to design a 
>coax on a PCB. Am I right with my thoughts, anyway? 
>

A couple of things make pcb's lossy: the loss tangent of the material
(and FR4 is pretty bad) and the copper losses. Copper loss gets bad on
conventional FR4 boards because

1. FR4's Er is high, so for a given impedance traces are skinny.

2. The underside of the copper is treated to bond to the epoxy/glass,
and the treatment (black oxide or something) greatly increases skin
losses. Peel some up and look... it's gross. 

3. In the case of microstrip, the current is concentrated on the
underside (the dirty side) of the trace, so losses are that much
worse... the shiny topside of the copper is underutilized. Stripline
would be better, with balanced current density, except that the trace
will be much thinner, which has its own penalty.


A good microwave pcb has a low Er, low loss dielectric; is thick, for
low current density and wide traces; has very smooth copper, which
means traces and pads peel off easily.

I don't think any simple geometry tricks (ie, emulating coax) will
make FR4 any better, and would probably make it worse. For low losses,
microstrip on a thick board is probably as good as it gets.

John






Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

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

Custom Search