tri-state in altera

The MuxF5's and MUXF6's have the wrong pitch to match up to arithmetic, which makes
them a pain in the tail to use on heavily arithmetic designs.   The mux pitch has
been a consistent complaint about the Virtex architecture.  Routingto them, as you
point out, is also an issue.

rickman wrote:

>
> Keep in mind that the newer Xilinx chips have a MUXF6 which allow up to
> 8 input muxes to be made with a single level of delay.  That compares
> well with the 16 input mux you can make from an Altera LAB.  Routing is
> an issue, but the speed of the tbufs driving long lines make them pretty
> impractical for the newer chips running at high speeds.  If you don't
> need speed, you can use a single wire with a serial bus to reduce the
> amount of logic and routing used.  What the newer chips provide is speed
> and lots of it.  That can do a lot to reduce the size of a design.
>
> --
>
> Rick "rickman" Collins
>
> rick.collins@XYarius.com
> Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
> removed.
>
> Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
> Specializing in DSP and FPGA design      URL http://www.arius.com
> 4 King Ave                               301-682-7772 Voice
> Frederick, MD 21701-3110                 301-682-7666 FAX

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Jan,

Of course!  I was thinking in terms of V2 not V2P.  Don't get to use the latter
as much as the former because of the nature of the clients I've been dealing
with (several space and military projects).

Jan Gray wrote:

> "Ray Andraka" <ray@andraka.com> wrote in message
> news:40C067CE.C332F829@andraka.com...
> > Also, if you put one block Ram per processor, you get an area of at least
> 8x20
> > CLBs for each block RAM.  I don't miss the TBUFs as much as I thought I
> > would...most of the time.
>
> Ray, there are (not uncoincidentally) 4Rx6C of CLB / BRAM+mult in Virtex-II
> Pro devices, yes?  And up to 444 BRAMs per device? :-)
>
> Also, for good old XCV600E, (NB half as many slices per CLB), I used 8Rx6C
> per processor, floorplanning 60 16-bit CPU + BRAM tiles or 36 32-bit CPUs +
> 2 BRAM tiles. [http://www.fpgacpu.org/log/mar02.html#020302]
>
> TBUFs R.I.P.
>
> Jan Gray
> Gray Research LLC

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

>Keep in mind that the newer Xilinx chips have a MUXF6 which allow up to
>8 input muxes to be made with a single level of delay.  That compares
>well with the 16 input mux you can make from an Altera LAB.  Routing is
>an issue, but the speed of the tbufs driving long lines make them pretty
>impractical for the newer chips running at high speeds.  If you don't
>need speed, you can use a single wire with a serial bus to reduce the
>amount of logic and routing used.  What the newer chips provide is speed
>and lots of it.  That can do a lot to reduce the size of a design.  

I'm not sure that "lots of speed" translates into don't need tbufs.
I'd expect that designers expectations and goals would grow to use
all available resources - both space and time.

Yes, if I'm using a modern/fast part to implement an old design,
I may be able to make speed/space tradeoffs.  But I could also be
speeding up the whole project and expecting a state machine that
used to run a X MHz to now run at 3X or 5X.  (adjust your goals
to match the age of your design)

Is there something fundamentally evil with tbufs?  Or is the problem
that they don't scale because the chips are getting bigger (when
measured in gates, not microns).

Suppose I design a FPGA with old fashioned tbufs and long lines, but
don't cover the width of the whole chip, but just X LUT/FF units.
Would that track other speed improvements as silicon gets faster?

-- 
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.

(Hal Murray) wrote:

<Snip>
>Suppose I design a FPGA with old fashioned tbufs and long lines, but
>don't cover the width of the whole chip, but just X LUT/FF units.
>Would that track other speed improvements as silicon gets faster?

No, interconnect does not scale.  Interconnect gets slower as the
device geometry gets smaller.

Transistors scale.  As they get smaller, the operating voltage
decreases and the switching speed increases.  Nice, eh?

Interconnect has a bulk resistivity set by the material.  The end-to
end resistance is (resistivity*length)/(width*thickness).  If the
ratios between length : width : thickness are constant, the resistance
doubles if the size halves.  This is why interconnect was almost
ignorable at 3 micron geometry and is a major source of delay at .90
micron, even after changing to copper with a lower bulk resistivity.


--
Phil Hays
Phil_hays at posting domain should work for email

Let me correct this:
1.
Resistance by itself does not matter. The product of resistance times
capacitance matters.
2.
When the process is scaled down, the metal thickness really is not (or
hardly) reduced. It still is around a micron, as it has been for years.
 So, when all horizontal dimensions are cut in half, the metal traces
become half as wide and half as long, which means resistance is
constant. Yes, most metal traces are now much thicker than they are wide!
And it would appear that the capacitance of a half-width trace that is
half as long would be reduced 75%, and the RC product would thus be 4
times lower.

Reality is less benign, since the capacitive fringe effects take over,
and the sidewall capacitance and the trace-to-trace capacitance really increases.

Interconnect delays matter, but we can send a signal over quite a
distance in a single nanosecond. And on clock lines we can magically
eliminate the delay completely, using a DCM.

Peter Alfke

Phil Hays wrote:
> 
> (Hal Murray) wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> >Suppose I design a FPGA with old fashioned tbufs and long lines, but
> >don't cover the width of the whole chip, but just X LUT/FF units.
> >Would that track other speed improvements as silicon gets faster?
> 
> No, interconnect does not scale.  Interconnect gets slower as the
> device geometry gets smaller.
> 
> Transistors scale.  As they get smaller, the operating voltage
> decreases and the switching speed increases.  Nice, eh?
> 
> Interconnect has a bulk resistivity set by the material.  The end-to
> end resistance is (resistivity*length)/(width*thickness).  If the
> ratios between length : width : thickness are constant, the resistance
> doubles if the size halves.  This is why interconnect was almost
> ignorable at 3 micron geometry and is a major source of delay at .90
> micron, even after changing to copper with a lower bulk resistivity.
> 
> --
> Phil Hays
> Phil_hays at posting domain should work for email