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 100675

Article: 100675
Subject: Re: Counting bits
From: andrewfelch@gmail.com
Date: 15 Apr 2006 11:57:21 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Wow, you guys have all been really helpful.

The conclusion seems to be that it would depend on system bandwidth,
but if there are 20 (possibly 1,000 as I scale to larger problems and
need greater capacity)  "reference" million-bit-vectors, then I only
need to read the input vector from memory 1/20th as often as your
figure, right?

Jan wrote:
>> Budget? Time? All counts.
I'd prefer a scalable solution so I can pay more later for more speed.
I parse pieces of a sentence independently, so the problem breaks up
easily across several fpga cards, if that is cheaper.  I perform Monte
Carlo sampling, which means that I run 30 indpendent experiments.  So
if I'm bandwidth limited I should breakup the problem to 30 fpga
equipped computers.

Kolja wrote:
>> On the other hand the P4 value seems to low. According to "Hacker's
>> Delight" pages 65ff counting the number of bits in a 32-bit word takes
>> less than 20 instruction.

I agree that I should write it in C/C++ to see what my max P4 speed is,
but http://www-db.stanford.edu/~manku/bitcount/bitcount.html indicates
that 16-bit lookup tables are most efficient (fits in L1 cache on a
AMD64, which I don't have, using only 3 clock cycles), which is what I
already use.  The next step is definately to implement in C/C++ by
hand.

The consensus seems to be that it could be done well in fpga, and that
price scales with the problem much better than clusters of CPU's acting
on their own.  It also seems that I would have to hire someone to build
it because it is not simple enough for a newbie to try.  I hack xboxes,
i-opener (net appliance), and other hardware so I am a DIY learning
kind of guy, and it seems to me that at 27 years of age, being able to
implement pieces of my algorithms in hardware would be a great
advantage to decades of my future work.

I could get $200 to $500 from my advisor for a developer's kit for
sure.  Any additional suggestions on specific hardware, estimated time
to develop for a newbie, etc. are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
AndrewF


Article: 100676
Subject: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: jaxato@gmail.com
Date: 15 Apr 2006 12:50:12 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi everyone,

As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this
morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore.
It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing
Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more
expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer
(the part I am looking for specially).
Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it
really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online
section.

Many thanks
Jacques


Article: 100677
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:02:07 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
<jaxato@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this
> morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore.
> It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing
> Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more
> expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer
> (the part I am looking for specially).
> Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it
> really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online
> section.
>
> Many thanks
> Jacques
>
avnet possible did not like that xilinx sold directly so xilinx had to 
remove the silicon devices from their online shop :(
really very bad move !

Antti 



Article: 100678
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net>
Date: 15 Apr 2006 14:48:39 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Go to digikey.com, and search for xilinx.
The paper catalog has an extremely poor selection of Xilinx FPGAs, but
the web selection is better.
Their search method is awful  :-(
Peter Alfke, from home


Article: 100679
Subject: Re: Spartan 3 chips in power up
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:20:39 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
rickman wrote:
> 
> But table 30 on page 55 seems to be saying that if Vccint or Vccaux dip
> below the minimum values, but still above the reset trip points, the
> configuration can be corrupted and the FPGA will not be put in reset.

Most digital suppliers will only commit to monotonic power supplies.
[and even then, sometimes some pretty tight dV/dT - IIRC, see the
MAX II ? ]

If you have brownout dips, you are pretty much on your own....

> In this case should I assume that the IOs can then be in any state and
> may hang the DSP memory bus?  If so, I need to use the PowerOK on the
> LDO regulators to either halt the DSP or make sure it gets an NMI and
> runs only from internal memory.  I would prefer to be able to keep the
> DSP running normally and record the power event in memory.  I have some
> concerns about the system power supply design and would like to be able
> to show clear evidence that the power is not stable rather than having
> to extrapolate from processor resets.

Well, if you are really worried about the system power, you will need
all the belts and braces at your disposal - even run to a separate small 
uC, whose sole job is power integrity and logging ?

-jg




Article: 100680
Subject: Re: Counting bits
From: Kolja Sulimma <news@sulimma.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:52:10 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
andrewfelch@gmail.com schrieb:
> but http://www-db.stanford.edu/~manku/bitcount/bitcount.html indicates
> that 16-bit lookup tables are most efficient (fits in L1 cache on a
> AMD64, which I don't have, using only 3 clock cycles), which is what I
> already use.
That link suggests that for 32-bit words you get to about 2.4Gbps in a
P4 in 2002. For  128-bit words in 2006 you probably get at least twice
that value. So something below 10gbps is likely to be the value for the
P4 using SSE2.


> Wow, you guys have all been really helpful.
> 
> The conclusion seems to be that it would depend on system bandwidth,
> but if there are 20 (possibly 1,000 as I scale to larger problems and
> need greater capacity)  "reference" million-bit-vectors, then I only
> need to read the input vector from memory 1/20th as often as your
> figure, right?

My figures assumed that you need to read the vectors that you compare
the input value against from memory and that that dominates the
bandwidth. If you can afford the money to store all input vectors on
chip except for the input vector you can reach insane speeds (TM).

You can get about 10 vectors in a very expensive FPGA.

If you do your computation for many input vectors for the same reference
vectors, you can also do the following:

Split the on chip memory to contain k bits each for N reference vectors.
As well as MxN intermediate counts for processing M input vectors.
Now you load part of your reference vectors and process the
corresponding parts of the input vectors over and over again.
For 100 reference vectors and 100 input vectors and k=32 you get
51200 bits per bus cycle. (you read 200 words for 10000 dot products of
32 bits)
With a 200MHz bus that's 1Tbps.

That design uses about 20000 LUTs and can be implemented in an
affordable XC3S1600E evaluation board with a fast 32-bit memory (did
anybody say PCIe?)

Kolja Sulimma

P.S.:
Masking bit vectors and doing sums of lookup table accesses can be done
really fast on graphics cards....





Article: 100681
Subject: systemc
From: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:19:22 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
What is the general view on the usefulness/value
of systemc?
I very familiar with Verilog and used to be
very familiar with VHDL.
Systemc seems to be lower level where you
are almost writing the simuator.  That would
appear to give more flexibility and abstraction.
But after you've completed the systemc design
it appears you have to rewrite it in a language
that can be synthesized in order to actually
make a chip.
Any comments?

--
rb 



Article: 100682
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:21:36 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti Lukats wrote:

> <jaxato@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
> news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this
>>morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore.
>>It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing
>>Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more
>>expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer
>>(the part I am looking for specially).
>>Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it
>>really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online
>>section.
>>
>>Many thanks
>>Jacques
>>
> 
> avnet possible did not like that xilinx sold directly so xilinx had to 
> remove the silicon devices from their online shop :(
> really very bad move !

Yes, it does smack more of political reflex, than rational thinking.

  Note that Microchip is moving in the _opposite_ direction - they offer 
quotes up to 10K, and recently added factory programming flows to their 
on-line order flows.
  In other words, they look keen for your business (all volumes), and 
seem less under the influence of their distributors.

  I had a quick look at the Avnet link, and "not in stock, XX Weeks" was 
common.

  Thus Xilinx sample procurement seems to have fallen thru the cracks, in
this decision.

  -jg



Article: 100683
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:31:37 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Peter Alfke wrote:

> Go to digikey.com, and search for xilinx.
> The paper catalog has an extremely poor selection of Xilinx FPGAs, but
> the web selection is better.
> Their search method is awful  :-(

If you find Digikey's interface poor, perhaps Xilinx could learn from 
this web link ?

http://www.altera.com/buy/buy-index.html

Some other company seems to have found a way to have a web store, and
an (almost)* workable Digikey link ?
-jg


* I tried MAX7000, and get this bemusing response

emp7
"Manufacturer Part Number: 132 phrase not found"

What, nothing at all ?

Funny, phrase not found reported, plus a _specific_ number ?! -
so I click on the 'phrase not found', as that seems to be
a web link, and voila, finally, EPM7xx listings at Digikey!

Strange that, MAX 3000 works fine - so, some wrinkles to iron out here...


Article: 100684
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:47:33 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jim Granville wrote:

> * I tried MAX7000, and get this bemusing response
> 
> emp7
> "Manufacturer Part Number: 132 phrase not found"
> 
> What, nothing at all ?
> 
> Funny, phrase not found reported, plus a _specific_ number ?! -
> so I click on the 'phrase not found', as that seems to be
> a web link, and voila, finally, EPM7xx listings at Digikey!
> 
> Strange that, MAX 3000 works fine - so, some wrinkles to iron out here...

A little more on this :
  Seems strange indeed, as the 'phrase not found' seems to be trying to
indicate not in stock. Only devices with MOQs and high ASPs show up.
  Their search button is also called "phrase not found" - oops

  However, if I go straigt to Digikey, there are actually plenty of
EPM7xx in stock, with no MOQs ?!

Altera will be eager to fix that :)

-jg





Article: 100685
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: jaxato@gmail.com
Date: 15 Apr 2006 17:49:29 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello everyone,

Well I have checked on Digikey and they do not have the FPGA we need,
which is the XC3S200-4VQ100C. We have dealt in the past with
Nuhorizons, but we've got some issues with them and we would prefer to
deal directly with god. The Xilinx online shop was next to perfect and
the fact that they were shipping our parts in different shipments was
actually beneficial for us. It saved us on custom and duties that we
had to pay, if we were to receive the parts as a whole. We are a small
startup company and we have long term plans for Xilinx FPGA products.
We had reached the point where we had everything running smoothly, like
after fine tuning your radio receiver to the correct station, but now,
we have to rework everything and adjust everything again. Tonite I am
disappointed with Xilinx. :~(

Jacques


Article: 100686
Subject: Re: Counting bits
From: "news.verizon.net" <martin.ryba@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:51:31 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"David M. Palmer" <dmpalmer@email.com> wrote in message 
news:150420061212343276%dmpalmer@email.com...
> In article <1145050118.699722.123650@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> <andrewfelch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am a Python programmer writing neural network code with binary firing
>> and binary weight values.  My code will take many days to parse my
>> large data sets.  I have no idea how much fpga could help, what the
>> cost would be, and how easy it would be to access it from Python.  The
>> problem is similar to competitive networks, where I must dot product
>> many million-length bit vectors (which only change occasionally) with 1
>> input vector.  Anybody want to estimate the cost, speedup, and value an
>> fpga could offer me?
>
> I assume you have looked for algorithmic speed-ups?  (Also FPGAs have
> different algorithmic speed-ups available than conventional computers.)
>
> As a Python programmer, you will probably find it easier to use C than
> to learn VHDL/Verilog to the extent you need to implement this.  If a
> single order-of-magnitude speed-up will solve your problems, then
> changing to a language closer to the metal may be enough and is easy
> enough to try.

In that vein, you should definitely look at the performance you can get 
using the free (IIRC) Intel Performance Library. Bit vector manipulations 
are probably some of the graphics-related operations that are supported by 
MMX and its descendants that are in the P4 processor. If your compiler isn't 
smart enough to do it natively (Intel sells high performance C compilers), 
then figuring out the free API and calling it is still quite doable. We do 
some digital signal processing (FFTs, filtering, reconstruction, etc.) on a 
mix of platforms. Sometimes FPGAs make sense (less size, weight, and power) 
and sometimes Pentiums or Power PCs make sense (cost, ease of programming).

-Marty



Article: 100687
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net>
Date: 15 Apr 2006 18:39:28 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity.
I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the
ladder, up to one step below the very top.
Maybe I have to go one stop higher.
Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation.
Obviously, our company could do much better...
Peter Alfke, from home


Article: 100688
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Alex Gibson" <news@alxx.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:57:54 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:44418deb@clear.net.nz...
> Antti Lukats wrote:
>
>> <jaxato@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
>> news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this
>>>morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore.
>>>It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing
>>>Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more
>>>expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer
>>>(the part I am looking for specially).
>>>Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it
>>>really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online
>>>section.
>>>
>>>Many thanks
>>>Jacques
>>>
>>
>> avnet possible did not like that xilinx sold directly so xilinx had to 
>> remove the silicon devices from their online shop :(
>> really very bad move !

But avnet won't give samples unless your a large
company otherwise you have to purchase them.


> Yes, it does smack more of political reflex, than rational thinking.
>
>  Note that Microchip is moving in the _opposite_ direction - they offer 
> quotes up to 10K, and recently added factory programming flows to their 
> on-line order flows.
>  In other words, they look keen for your business (all volumes), and seem 
> less under the influence of their distributors.
>

If only they had some chips with a bit more grunt
like an arm7 .

A lot of manufacturers need to learn from microchip.

Philips is quite good, but depends on your local distributor.

>  I had a quick look at the Avnet link, and "not in stock, XX Weeks" was 
> common.
>
>  Thus Xilinx sample procurement seems to have fallen thru the cracks, in
> this decision.
>
>  -jg

Simple , avoid using xilinx parts.
Use the companies that want your business.

If the management is to stupid to realise if people
can't get small quantities for prototyping and designs
especially for those doing contract work, we won't use their products,
bad luck ,that is their problem.

Might take a few years to have a budget impact.

Alex 



Article: 100689
Subject: Re: systemc
From: mk<kal*@dspia.*comdelete>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 04:14:32 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:19:22 GMT, "Ron Baker,    Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:

>What is the general view on the usefulness/value
>of systemc?
>I very familiar with Verilog and used to be
>very familiar with VHDL.
>Systemc seems to be lower level where you
>are almost writing the simuator.  That would
>appear to give more flexibility and abstraction.
>But after you've completed the systemc design
>it appears you have to rewrite it in a language
>that can be synthesized in order to actually
>make a chip.
>Any comments?

I am not sure why you say systemc is lower level. I have the opposite
impression. Also there are systemc synthesizers. It's also quite a bit
faster to simulate. As someone who writes C++ models using a
self-developed fixed-point class library, I welcome systemc.

Article: 100690
Subject: Re: systemc
From: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 05:42:49 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"mk" <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> wrote in message
news:kvg342hdjeb3o0b93i8oca3ko3sha6tq42@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:19:22 GMT, "Ron Baker,    Pluralitas!"
> <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>
>>What is the general view on the usefulness/value
>>of systemc?
>>I very familiar with Verilog and used to be
>>very familiar with VHDL.
>>Systemc seems to be lower level where you
>>are almost writing the simuator.  That would
>>appear to give more flexibility and abstraction.
>>But after you've completed the systemc design
>>it appears you have to rewrite it in a language
>>that can be synthesized in order to actually
>>make a chip.
>>Any comments?
>
> I am not sure why you say systemc is lower level.

You raise an interesting point.  Systemc is basically
an extension of c++.  C++ is a software language
and not even a high level software language per
the traditional description.  (C has been described
as 'portable assembler'.)  When one writes in
Systemc much of what one is writing are things that
I recognize as being internal to traditional simulators
such as Modelsim and nc-verilog.
In those senses SystemC is low level.

Being low level like that it is less constrained
and allows more abstract/behavioral coding.
Abstract/behavioral coding can be considered
high level.

> I have the opposite
> impression. Also there are systemc synthesizers.

Interesting.  Can you name some?
I asked the prof about that and he gave no
indication that there were such.
I can imagine that there would be synthesizers
for SystemC but I would expect they would
be distinctly limited in the range of possible contructs
that can be synthesized.

> It's also quite a bit
> faster to simulate.

Interesting.  In my minimal experience so far
it seems slower to compile but faster
to run.  And now that I think about it, run time
is more critical.

> As someone who writes C++ models using a
> self-developed fixed-point class library, I welcome systemc.

Interesting.

Another thought that comes to mind is regarding
graphical debugging tools.  With a traditional
HDL and simulator one can probe and graphically display
internal signals.  I haven't seen that capability with
SystemC.  What I've seen so far is like the earliest
crude HDL simulators that only had text based output.
If you've got a complete, working, self-checking testbench
that's just fine.  All it has to do is print 'Pass' or 'Fail'.
But in order to produce a testbench a graphical display
of internal signals is essential.

--
rb




Article: 100691
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Alex Gibson" <news@alxx.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:01:38 +1000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:1145151568.450696.36950@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity.
> I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the
> ladder, up to one step below the very top.
> Maybe I have to go one stop higher.
> Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation.
> Obviously, our company could do much better...
> Peter Alfke, from home

Feel free to print out all the comments here and give them
to who ever you need to.

Can't they see that if you loose small sales / prototype quantities
and you competitor looks after that market segment , you are just going to 
start bleeding sales
and only be restricted to the large companies.

The small contract designers just stop using xilinx.

But a problem hits a few years down the track, when the large companies 
start taking on new
people who prefer to use your competitors tools and devices
as they are familiar with them.

Avnet can be fine for ordering boards and equipment some times but
they are usually quite slow and prefer dealing with large companies.

You guys just want to give sales to Altera , Lattice etc , don't you ?

Alex 



Article: 100692
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:33:01 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1145151568.450696.36950@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity.
> I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the
> ladder, up to one step below the very top.
> Maybe I have to go one stop higher.
> Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation.
> Obviously, our company could do much better...
> Peter Alfke, from home
>

Dear Peter,

glad to see you to stick up - let me try to help as much as I can (to rock 
the higher boat)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My mother did show me a picture of my dad in the history book of Estonian 
Aeronautics.

So the strongest male influence from my young years was one simple word, 
from one
teacher in the 'rocket model' hobby club. This word is (its one word in 
estonian):

"Decision courage"

I do find this word so good one, so good that it qualifies every male giving 
to a child nothing more than this one word as a good father.

Xilinx removing the Spartan-3 (and possible other silicon devices) from 
direct online offering is a bad example of

"Decision courage-less" (one word in estonian) behaviour.

No matter if the decision to have Silicon Devices (including Spartan-3) in 
online shop was later seen as bad decision, it was that sort of "executive 
decision" that has to be kept even if it was a bad decision. Stepping back 
from it show the weakness of the Xilinx (executives).

There could be 3 reasons for the withdrawal (3 that I and I think most other 
people can figure out)

1) Xilinx sees direct sales as too much "hassle" - well if it is so, then no 
matter how much hassle it is, Xilinx should stick to the previous executive 
decision (to have the silicon devices in online shop)

2) Xilinx has serious availability and/or yield issues and removing the 
devices from its own online shop gives a possibility to try to hide and 
mascerade those yield problems - by blaming the distrubutors not having 
stock (but devices actually being available). Needless to say that all that 
kind of 'mascerade' attempts are silly and dont fulfill its purpose at the 
end of the day anyway.

3) Xilinx did step back because of pressure of the distributors (mainly 
Avnet?) - if that was the reasons then it again demonstrates nothing more 
than the weakness of Xilinx as global company and the weakness (decision 
courage-less) of Xilinx executives.

...

As of current the status of Xilinx silicon availability is getting worse -

1) Digikey should not be considered as source for Xilinx, they have some 
items in stock but what they have is very random, and items that they used 
to have may not be available any more any day (specially those you need when 
you need).

2) I have never dealt with NuHorizons, but all I have heard is only 
problems. To my emails I have never had any response from NuHorizons, so I 
am not considering them for anything.

3) I have had several issues with Memec before they merged into Avnet, there 
is no memec so no more issues :)

4) My only purchase from Avnet was 6 month late (despite order 
confirmation). Others have expressed the Xilinx parts availability situation 
from Avnet worse than from Memec

Thats are the 'sources' for Xilinx components.

Altera has direct online shop, with pretty much pricing and atock info for 
latest parts - everyone finds that a very good thing. Not to mention that 
everyone I have talked too, have said pretty much one thing - Altera's 
software is just simply getting better. Better and better every 
release/udpate.

Lattice has no direct online orders, but the stock at disties like Mouser 
also for latest parts (machXO, XP) is checkable with a few mouseclicks. Also 
other distributors claim immediate fom stock delivery (what I can also 
confirm personally having received the parts).

Xilinx has greatly imrpoved the price/perfomrance ration of Xilinx own 
evaluation boards after overpriced ML300 so my current primary source for 
Xilinx eval boards would be Xilinx direct (online shop), having the silicon 
devices orderable as side orders, would be real good thing. If they arent, 
well Altera has all from one shop.

Similarly as others have said already, the lack of silicon devices in oline 
shop is just another drop to choose alternative vendors.

And dear Xilinx, an even an ocean is made of single drops of water. It's 
hard to tell when last drop falls that makes the decision scale to turn over 
(in favor of competitive products). But every drop makes that possibility 
(of such decisions) closer.

Antti Lukats,
Xilant Tecnologies

PS we will have some (FPGA related product) to launch soon (within 8 weeks 
max)















Article: 100693
Subject: Petition about the xilinx online store ?
From: "Labo.EKO" <labo.eko***nospam***@free.fr>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:19:42 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


hi everybody,

maybe we can do a petition about this xilinx store ?...
i'm French user and i can affirm that Avnet France, preferer (to not says
want ) only big customers ..
they are slow and expensive.. totaly incompatible with prototype phase.

Maybe Xilinx prefer that we try Lattice or others parts ?...

i'm realy not happy against that problem. they can be take example from
Microchip & sample service ...

( sorry for my bad english ! )


Regard's
Philippe




<jaxato@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this
> morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore.
> It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing
> Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more
> expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer
> (the part I am looking for specially).
> Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it
> really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online
> section.
>
> Many thanks
> Jacques
>



Article: 100694
Subject: Re: systemc
From: "Hans" <hans64@ht-lab.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:35:17 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message 
news:tPk0g.4939$3W1.1547@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> I am not sure why you say systemc is lower level.
>
> You raise an interesting point.  Systemc is basically
> an extension of c++.

It is more than an extension to C++, it includes a cycles based simulator 
and VCD dumping support.

> C++ is a software language
> and not even a high level software language per
> the traditional description.

IMHO C++ is a high level language, why do you think it isn't?

> (C has been described
> as 'portable assembler'.)  When one writes in
> Systemc much of what one is writing are things that
> I recognize as being internal to traditional simulators
> such as Modelsim and nc-verilog.
> In those senses SystemC is low level.

Check out the appendix in the OSCI SystemC userguide, if you want you can 
use HDL style programming for SystemC.

>
> Being low level like that it is less constrained
> and allows more abstract/behavioral coding.
> Abstract/behavioral coding can be considered
> high level.
>
>> I have the opposite
>> impression. Also there are systemc synthesizers.
>
> Interesting.  Can you name some?

What about Catapult-C, Agility, Forthe?

> I asked the prof about that and he gave no
> indication that there were such.

And he is a "prof" in.............:-)

> I can imagine that there would be synthesizers
> for SystemC but I would expect they would
> be distinctly limited in the range of possible contructs
> that can be synthesized.

Check out the (not yet ratified) synthesisable SystemC subset.

>
>> It's also quite a bit
>> faster to simulate.
>
> Interesting.  In my minimal experience so far
> it seems slower to compile but faster
> to run.  And now that I think about it, run time
> is more critical.
>
>> As someone who writes C++ models using a
>> self-developed fixed-point class library, I welcome systemc.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Another thought that comes to mind is regarding
> graphical debugging tools.  With a traditional
> HDL and simulator one can probe and graphically display
> internal signals.  I haven't seen that capability with
> SystemC.

Check out Modelsim, you get nearly the same capability as the supported HDL 
languages, in addition you can display transactors in the next upcoming 6.2 
release. I assume NCSim and others will or have the same capability.

> What I've seen so far is like the earliest
> crude HDL simulators that only had text based output.
> If you've got a complete, working, self-checking testbench
> that's just fine.  All it has to do is print 'Pass' or 'Fail'.
> But in order to produce a testbench a graphical display
> of internal signals is essential.

Even the free OSCI simulator support VCD dumping, run your simulation, log 
the signals then use free GTKView or Dinotrace to display them.

SystemC is not perfect (check out the error messages, what a pain!) but 
unless Accellera start making noises about SystemVHDL/HypherVHDL or whatever 
they call it SystemC is very suitable for testbenches and high level 
modeling. Mixing HDL and SystemC is very easy (at least in Modelsim) and 
will give you goodies like constraint random/transaction level modelling and 
a dead easy C interface :-)

Hans
www.ht-lab.com


>
> --
> rb 



Article: 100695
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: Mike Harrison <mike@whitewing.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:52:16 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 15 Apr 2006 18:39:28 -0700, "Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity.
>I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the
>ladder, up to one step below the very top.
>Maybe I have to go one stop higher.
>Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation.
>Obviously, our company could do much better...
>Peter Alfke, from home

If you want to give an example of someone who has got it right : 
http://www.microchipdirect.com/


Article: 100696
Subject: Re: Petition about the xilinx online store ?
From: jaxato@gmail.com
Date: 16 Apr 2006 06:36:24 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Philippe,

I am totally for that. Like im sure if we could get like 10,000s names,
then we would have achieve something. I was thinking about how they
took the decision of removing the online shop. Just recently, I noticed
that they added the PROM section to the online shop. This lend me to
believe that at one point, they were actually promoting and saw a
future for online shopping, but something happened that made them took
a 180 degrees U turn. I wouldnt be surprised if in late March 2006, the
big bosses of Xilinx and Avnet had lunch in one of these fancy and they
decided: Hey let's do something really bad, let's take out the online
shop. And I am pretty sure that it was instigated by Avnet.

Yesterday, I was checking out their shipping policy and the way they do
business for international customers. Avnet ask that you purchase a
minimum order of $500, if you are from outside the states or canada.
Cmon people, you would get 50 x XC3S100 for that price and this isnt
prototyping anymore. Then, when I think that Xilinx advertise on their
site, in big, brite and bold: "World=B4s Lowest Cost FPGAs - now
available in prototyping quanties from Avnet"... ironical isnt it,
makes me wonder where we are heading. Lets face it, we have a problem
here and we should find a solution, and quick. Now, Peter and al, you
should advise us of the possible moves that we've got in order to
replace or convice your bosses of getting back our dear online shop.

>From a previously happy canadian customer.
Jacques


Article: 100697
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Mike Treseler" <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:58:49 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jim Granville wrote:

> http://www.altera.com/buy/buy-index.html
> Some other company seems to have found a way to have a web store

In that same link, note that Altera is now making the same
mistake with development software that Xilinx is making
with devices. So it goes.

           -- Mike Treseler

Article: 100698
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: "Mike Treseler" <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:28:31 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti Lukats wrote:
> Altera's 
> software is just simply getting better. Better and better every 
> release/udpate.

Which is surprising to me, considering that the initial HDL support
on MAXplus2 was the Subaru 360 of CAE :)
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/360van-sideview3.jpe

> even an ocean is made of single drops of water. It's 
> hard to tell when last drop falls that makes the decision scale to turn over 

Last year, at my local ski hill, there were 14 ski schools.
This year, all but 5 were sent packing. Next year there
will be only one ski school.


               -- Mike Treseler


Article: 100699
Subject: Re: Where is the xilinx online store gone?
From: Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:34:21 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:28:31 -0700) it happened "Mike Treseler"
<mike_treseler@comcast.net> wrote in <4af2kgFsjcngU1@individual.net>:

>Antti Lukats wrote:
>> Altera's 
>> software is just simply getting better. Better and better every 
>> release/udpate.
>
>Which is surprising to me, considering that the initial HDL support
>on MAXplus2 was the Subaru 360 of CAE :)
>http://www.cars101.com/subaru/360van-sideview3.jpe
>
>> even an ocean is made of single drops of water. It's 
>> hard to tell when last drop falls that makes the decision scale to turn over 
>
>Last year, at my local ski hill, there were 14 ski schools.
>This year, all but 5 were sent packing. Next year there
>will be only one ski school.
>
Would be a pity if only Altera was left, as a bit of competion improves quality
and lowers prices.



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