You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
I don't know why TSMC isn't more aggressive about iPDK. We saw it maybe 2 years ago but it has not been pushed. Mentor and Cadence have too much leverage in PDKs. I would like to see the big EDA companies do shoot-outs based on technology and not on formats. Instead they make up new names for the same things and try to confuse us all. It is like magic tricks where they wave one hand so you don't look at the other one picking your pocket.
Mentor and the rest of the IC EDA vendors are very interested in iPDKs ... the only vendor that is not so inclined is Cadence. The idea and talk of OpenAccess and iPDKs have been around for many years, but have never really replaced the Cadence PDK.
The other problem of course is that iPDKs are released for the newer processes nodes (e.g. 65nm and below) ... hence if you are using 0.13 or 90nm processes (a lot of analogue/mixed signal designs are still at these nodes ...), you will be stuck with whatever is available ... and that is usually a Cadence PDK or a hand crafted design kit created by your EDA provider.
That may be the case but talk is cheap. Some time ago I asked to get the 65nm iPDK for TSMC and then I noticed it hardly gets any revisions and that the Cadence PDK gets regular revisions. I conclude then that it is better to stick to the Cadence PDK as it is supported.
Staf,
Interesting, I wonder if the multiple revisions for the Cadence PDK is because it is bug fixes or to center for the process?
It's odd that TSMC would talk about iPDK and then only revise the Cadence PDK at 65nm.
You will find this quite common in foundries ...i.e. they usually keep the Cadence PDK in tip top shape with the latest models, bug fixes etc
... with support for the other EDA vendors trailing behind ... that is if you are lucky. Most of the time, if there are no requests from users, the HSPICE, Eldo etc models will be left "out dated".
This is especially the case when new devices are brought into the kit ... e.g special inductors, special varactors etc ...
If you are analog it is only Cadence because of ADE. We look at Synopsys but not ready yet. You mention SPICE what about BDA? Where do they rank with Spectre and Hspice? BDE is in the TSMC reference flow now but I do not see numbers anywhere. Can someone post Spice numbers? That should be a wiki article?
EDAC reports some general EDA tool revenues by product category however there is no enforcement of where SPICE revenues should go. In fact, the EDA companies can move their SPICE revenues in and out of EDAC categories with no notice. If you are an EDA company with an EDAC subscription then you can tell what your market share may be, but there is no public reporting of specific EDA tool revenues.
Gary Smith EDA has a very good idea of EDA tool revenues and you can buy his reports.