Daniel Payne
Moderator
Just blogged about what Tanner EDA and TowerJazz are offering for AMS designers.
View attachment 297 View attachment 298
View attachment 297 View attachment 298
iPDK is the way to go for AMS Designs
- Thread starter Daniel Payne
- Start date
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.
Daniel Payne
Moderator
Charlie,
I think that the transition to iPDK will occur gradually. At DAC there is a huge presence for iPDK and TSMC promotes it heavily then.
EDA companies have a long history of grudgingly replacing their proprietary file formats in favor of industry norms.
I think that the transition to iPDK will occur gradually. At DAC there is a huge presence for iPDK and TSMC promotes it heavily then.
EDA companies have a long history of grudgingly replacing their proprietary file formats in favor of industry norms.
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.
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.
S
Staf_Verhaegen
Guest
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.
greets,
Staf.
Daniel Payne
Moderator
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.
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.
Hi Daniel,
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 ...
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?
Daniel Payne
Moderator
Jensen,
BDA is in my list of SPICE circuit simulators.
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.
BDA is in my list of SPICE circuit simulators.
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.