Hi,

I'm evaluating low cost FPGA's for a new design starting end next
month.

Besides XC3S2000, EP1C20 and EC33 (I know, the EP1C20 is much smaller
than the other 2), I was looking for other 90nm families.
I found XC3S1500E, EP2C35, but no Lattice anymore.

I wonder about the availability of the XC3S1500E and EP2C35.

Has someone seen samples yet, knows something more how they compare
(performance, pricewise).
What about SW Tool support?

Regards,

Luc

Hi Luc,

> I wonder about the availability of the XC3S1500E and EP2C35.
> 
> Has someone seen samples yet, knows something more how they compare
> (performance, pricewise).

EP1C20 is in full production, the EP2C35 is sampling with about a 4-week
lead time if the disti's don't have any stock, the XC3S1500E has only been
specced yet and I haven't got a clue about the Lattice part.

The EP2C35 will be more expensive than the EP1C20, with slightly higher
performance in terms of routing and LE performance. The addition of HW
multipliers is handy if you use them.

That's all I can say at the moment. Don't know how this all stacks up
against X and L.

> What about SW Tool support?

The EP1C20 is fully supported in Quartus, using final timing models, while
the EP2C35 has preliminary support (i.e. no bitstream generation) in the
standard version of Quartus 4.2. If you have a compelling reason to
generate an EP2C35 bitstream right now there's ways to accomplish this
already though. The EP2C35 will be fully supported in Quartus 5.0, released
sometime end of April.

The XC3S1500E may already be supported in Webpack 7.1, but I'm not sure.

Best regards,



Ben

Hi Luc,

I don't have much to add -- Ben has covered most of the high points.

> Has someone seen samples yet, knows something more how they compare
> (performance, pricewise).

On a performance front, you will find that Cyclone and Cyclone II have
a significant performance advantage over Spartan-3.  We're talking
50-60% (core performance on 100+ designs, comparing fastest speed grade
to fastest speed grade using best-possible software settings).

But don't take my word on it.  Download our freely available Quartus II
Web Edition and give your design a whirl in Cyclone/Cyclone II.  Do the
same for Spartan-3.

Regards,

Paul Leventis
Altera Corp.

Ben & Paul,

Thanks for the feedback.
I wonder what X & L could add to their defence.

What about DDR or DDR2 support?
This is certainly somthing I'm looking for. Multipliers are benificial
but not a necessity.

Regards,

Luc
On 18 Mar 2005 13:55:56 -0800, "Paul Leventis"
<p...@utoronto.ca> wrote:

>Hi Luc,
>
>I don't have much to add -- Ben has covered most of the high points.
>
>> Has someone seen samples yet, knows something more how they compare
>> (performance, pricewise).
>
>On a performance front, you will find that Cyclone and Cyclone II have
>a significant performance advantage over Spartan-3.  We're talking
>50-60% (core performance on 100+ designs, comparing fastest speed grade
>to fastest speed grade using best-possible software settings).
>
>But don't take my word on it.  Download our freely available Quartus II
>Web Edition and give your design a whirl in Cyclone/Cyclone II.  Do the
>same for Spartan-3.
>
>Regards,
>
>Paul Leventis
>Altera Corp.

Well,

Suffice it to say, I don't agree with Paul, but that should come as no 
surprise.

Spartan 3S100E was just announced, so to ask if a 3S1500E is sampling is 
a bit like asking if we are ready to go visit Mars.

Seriously, announcement of the first available part usually means that 
the rest of the family is three to six months from even being taped out 
(for us, or Paul).

Announcement of the first part into production also means that the time 
till all parts are in production is out from three to six months (again, 
for us, or Paul).

Sometimes we do better than that.  Sometimes they do better than that. 
Sometimes we both do worse.  And suffer for it.

Depends on a lot of factors:  are they any errata to fix?  how many 
layer changes need to be made?  is the process yielding?  have we passed 
the process qualification?  have we passed the product qualification? 
do we have parts ready to ship? so on and so forth.

For example:  the 2S60 was announced as having received wafers on June 
2, 2004.

http://www.altera.com/corporate/news_room/releases/releases_archive/2004/products/nr-strat
ix2_sampling.html

Then, they just recently admitted they will ship the final production 
version of that 2S60 part with the Iccint surge current fixed by the end 
of this month (3/31/2005).  I am likely to believe this, as we just 
tested the 2S90, and the Iccint surge is all gone.

We announced the 4VLX25 on 6/28/2004 (lagging Altera, but we actually 
shipped five parts on boards on this date and the customer was USING them!).

http://www.xilinx.com/prs_rls/silicon_vir/0480v4shipment.htm

Then, we just recently announced we are shipping production on this part 
1/31/2005:

http://www.xilinx.com/prs_rls/silicon_vir/0517v4prodqual.htm

So, 9 months for a 2S60 from announcement of first wafer to production 
(unconfirmed, as it isn't 3/31 yet), and 7 months for the Xilinx 4VLX25 
(confirmed).

Not much of a difference there.

If you go back and track every product announced, to every ES, to every 
product released to production, you will find a remarkably similar time 
line.  After all, both Xilinx and Altera use world class fabs (UMC and 
TSMC), and both use a leading edge process, and the differences will be 
mostly related to factors that are totally random in nature (if we are 
going to be honest about it).

Go talk to your Xilinx FAE, and get the timeline for what you need.

Oh, and take the performance boasts (for these low cost parts) from 
everyone with a grain of salt.  Until you see what your needs are, you 
are unlikely to be able to evaluate if there is even a difference in 
performance, and if that performance difference even matters for your 
application.

Sure, Spartan 3 (and 3E) have the 18X18 multipliers.  And Altera has 
elements they are proud of in Cyclone 2.

But just like Virtex 4 vs Stratix 2, you are going to have to wade 
through a lot of very technical information if you are trying to compare 
benchmarks.  Best you test your application, regardless.

Austin

Luc,

Lattice EC/ECP are not 90nm, but 130nm at the 90nm cost. Excelent FGPA
architecture, great DDR performance (400Mbs). Almost all the devices
are available today. ispLEVER is free at the latticesemi.com

rgds,

cristian

Paul Leventis wrote:

> On a performance front, you will find that Cyclone and Cyclone II have
> a significant performance advantage over Spartan-3.  We're talking
> 50-60% (core performance on 100+ designs, comparing fastest speed grade
> to fastest speed grade using best-possible software settings).

BTW, the Cyclone manual says that the highest speed of
an M4K RAM bank is 200MHz, but Quartus estimates it to
about 250MHz (Cyclone 1C6, speed grade 6). So, which
information is right?

    Best regards
    Piotr Wyderski

Hi Austin,

> Spartan 3S100E was just announced, so to ask if a 3S1500E is sampling is
> a bit like asking if we are ready to go visit Mars.

So this Mars Rover thing is all a lie? I knew the whole thing was fake, just
like the moon landings! ;-)

Ben

Ben Twijnstra wrote:
> Hi Austin,
>
> > Spartan 3S100E was just announced, so to ask if a 3S1500E is
sampling is
> > a bit like asking if we are ready to go visit Mars.
>
> So this Mars Rover thing is all a lie? I knew the whole thing was
fake, just
> like the moon landings! ;-)

I'm going majorly off-topic here...

That reminds me of an mpeg clip I collected a while back: it has aliens
on Mars holding up a print-out of a barren Martian landscape - so
that's all the Mars rover can see.  It's pretty funny... but I don't
currently have anywhere to post it, and I can't find it online any
more.

   Marc

> So this Mars Rover thing is all a lie? I
knew the whole thing was fake, just
> like the moon landings! ;-)


Actually, that would be Actel -- not X or A -- devices supporting the
Mars Rover  ;)

http://www.actel.com/company/press/2005pr/MarsRover.html

;)


cheers,
Kris