I am just wandering if any of you have take a look at the Lattice FPGAs. I do like the DSP functions. is out there any serious comparation against SpartanIII and Cyclone? regards, paul
new Lattice FPGAs vs Cyclone and SpartanIII
Started by ●July 2, 2004
Reply by ●July 5, 20042004-07-05
What special did u find on it?? on the first glance it looks similar to what altera is proving for year as DSP block paul_sereno@hotmail.com (Paul Sereno) wrote in message news:<3d7510b4.0407021019.c3a5df5@posting.google.com>...> I am just wandering if any of you have take a look at the Lattice > FPGAs. I do like the DSP functions. > is out there any serious comparation against SpartanIII and Cyclone? > > regards, > > paul
Reply by ●July 5, 20042004-07-05
IMHO, Altera's DSP block is only a multiplier. The MAC block Lattice is proposing is much richer: reg, mult, pipeline reg, accu, reg. On top of it, the IO cell has more regs than any other comparable architecture. Anyone tried to implement DDR333 on Cyclone or S3? rgrds, On 4 Jul 2004 23:42:00 -0700, digari@dacafe.com (digari) wrote:>What special did u find on it?? on the first glance it looks similar >to what altera is proving for year as DSP block > >paul_sereno@hotmail.com (Paul Sereno) wrote in message news:<3d7510b4.0407021019.c3a5df5@posting.google.com>... >> I am just wandering if any of you have take a look at the Lattice >> FPGAs. I do like the DSP functions. >> is out there any serious comparation against SpartanIII and Cyclone? >> >> regards, >> >> paul
Reply by ●July 6, 20042004-07-06
Luc Braeckman <luc.braeckman@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<co4ie010ld9h69mmp8i09l86i5l0uhs13a@4ax.com>...> IMHO, Altera's DSP block is only a multiplier. The MAC block Lattice > is proposing is much richer: reg, mult, pipeline reg, accu, reg. On > top of it, the IO cell has more regs than any other comparable > architecture.Please have a look at: http://www.altera.com/products/devices/stratix/features/stx-dsp.html and then see where Latice got thier ideas from. But you are correct for the lowcost families Altera (CycloneII) and Xilinx (spartan-3) has chosen Multipliers rather then DSP blocks. Put if you call Alteras DSP block a mulitiplyer you have to say the same about Latice since there are at least on the marketing slides I have seen identical. YMHO Fredrik
Reply by ●July 6, 20042004-07-06
Fredrik, I don't want to start a discussion about the chicken and the egg and.. You are right about Stratix, but Lattice has implemented them in a low cost device, and there is the advantage. If you don't want to spend lot's of $$ on features you're not going to use, this ECP-DSP family is a very good alternative, and the performance ... well look for yourselve and try a benchmark. Luc ___ for On 5 Jul 2004 23:11:54 -0700, fredrik_he_lang@hotmail.com (Fredrik) wrote:>Luc Braeckman <luc.braeckman@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<co4ie010ld9h69mmp8i09l86i5l0uhs13a@4ax.com>... >> IMHO, Altera's DSP block is only a multiplier. The MAC block Lattice >> is proposing is much richer: reg, mult, pipeline reg, accu, reg. On >> top of it, the IO cell has more regs than any other comparable >> architecture. >Please have a look at: >http://www.altera.com/products/devices/stratix/features/stx-dsp.html >and then see where Latice got thier ideas from. But you are correct >for the lowcost families Altera (CycloneII) and Xilinx (spartan-3) has >chosen Multipliers rather then DSP blocks. Put if you call Alteras DSP >block a mulitiplyer you have to say the same about Latice since there >are at least on the marketing slides I have seen identical. >YMHO >Fredrik
Reply by ●July 6, 20042004-07-06
I agree with Luc. The DSP blocks are just great for a low cost FPGA. Stratix have the same or similar but you need to pay for them. Another point that Luc mentioned is the DDR capabilities. There is a dedicated hardware (DLL and input registers) to facilitate the DDR interface without needing to waste LUT on it. I like that as well. Clocking scheme looks good. Great range of freq from analog PLLs. Normal 4 quadrants. It seems the market for the low cost FPGA is getting hot with one good new member. .. paul Luc Braeckman <luc.braeckman@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<jflke0156m53oldb1laiu7cjuf2ljujgtf@4ax.com>...> Fredrik, > > I don't want to start a discussion about the chicken and the egg and.. > You are right about Stratix, but Lattice has implemented them in a low > cost device, and there is the advantage. If you don't want to spend > lot's of $$ on features you're not going to use, this ECP-DSP family > is a very good alternative, and the performance ... well look for > yourselve and try a benchmark. > Luc > ___ > for On 5 Jul 2004 23:11:54 -0700, fredrik_he_lang@hotmail.com > (Fredrik) wrote: > > >Luc Braeckman <luc.braeckman@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<co4ie010ld9h69mmp8i09l86i5l0uhs13a@4ax.com>... > >> IMHO, Altera's DSP block is only a multiplier. The MAC block Lattice > >> is proposing is much richer: reg, mult, pipeline reg, accu, reg. On > >> top of it, the IO cell has more regs than any other comparable > >> architecture. > >Please have a look at: > >http://www.altera.com/products/devices/stratix/features/stx-dsp.html > >and then see where Latice got thier ideas from. But you are correct > >for the lowcost families Altera (CycloneII) and Xilinx (spartan-3) has > >chosen Multipliers rather then DSP blocks. Put if you call Alteras DSP > >block a mulitiplyer you have to say the same about Latice since there > >are at least on the marketing slides I have seen identical. > >YMHO > >Fredrik
Reply by ●July 7, 20042004-07-07
Paul and Luc, There is no contridiction, they look good the new Lattice parts, my point was that the DSP block (stratix) is similar to DSP-blocks in Lattice. My second point was that the marketing done by Altera for CycloneII they have never called the embedded multipilers for DPS-blocks since they as pointed out are not. The battle for FPGA supremacy continues ... Cheers Fredrik paul_sereno@hotmail.com (Paul Sereno) wrote in message news:<3d7510b4.0407061111.18b75a94@posting.google.com>...> I agree with Luc. The DSP blocks are just great for a low cost FPGA. > Stratix have the same or similar but you need to pay for them. > Another point that Luc mentioned is the DDR capabilities. There is a > dedicated hardware (DLL and input registers) to facilitate the DDR > interface without needing to waste LUT on it. I like that as well. > Clocking scheme looks good. Great range of freq from analog PLLs. > Normal 4 quadrants. It seems the market for the low cost FPGA is > getting hot with one good new member. .. > > paul > > Luc Braeckman <luc.braeckman@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<jflke0156m53oldb1laiu7cjuf2ljujgtf@4ax.com>... > > Fredrik, > > > > I don't want to start a discussion about the chicken and the egg and.. > > You are right about Stratix, but Lattice has implemented them in a low > > cost device, and there is the advantage. If you don't want to spend > > lot's of $$ on features you're not going to use, this ECP-DSP family > > is a very good alternative, and the performance ... well look for > > yourselve and try a benchmark. > > Luc > > ___ > > for On 5 Jul 2004 23:11:54 -0700, fredrik_he_lang@hotmail.com > > (Fredrik) wrote: > > > > >Luc Braeckman <luc.braeckman@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<co4ie010ld9h69mmp8i09l86i5l0uhs13a@4ax.com>... > > >> IMHO, Altera's DSP block is only a multiplier. The MAC block Lattice > > >> is proposing is much richer: reg, mult, pipeline reg, accu, reg. On > > >> top of it, the IO cell has more regs than any other comparable > > >> architecture. > > >Please have a look at: > > >http://www.altera.com/products/devices/stratix/features/stx-dsp.html > > >and then see where Latice got thier ideas from. But you are correct > > >for the lowcost families Altera (CycloneII) and Xilinx (spartan-3) has > > >chosen Multipliers rather then DSP blocks. Put if you call Alteras DSP > > >block a mulitiplyer you have to say the same about Latice since there > > >are at least on the marketing slides I have seen identical. > > >YMHO > > >Fredrik
Reply by ●July 13, 20042004-07-13
paul_sereno@hotmail.com (Paul Sereno) wrote in message news:<3d7510b4.0407021019.c3a5df5@posting.google.com>...> I am just wandering if any of you have take a look at the Lattice > FPGAs. I do like the DSP functions. > is out there any serious comparation against SpartanIII and Cyclone?The local Lattice FAE gave us the low-down. Looks like a decent set of chips. One thing we REALLY liked is that if you go with the devices that use an external configuration EPROM (rather than the family with the internal config flash), you can use a standard (read: CHEAP) SPI device, rather than a non-cheap specific config chip. I've always wondered why Brand A and Brand X continue to use their expensive config parts. Actually, that's not true -- I know why. Seriously, what's the point of using a $10 FPGA when the config EPROM is also $10? -a
Reply by ●July 13, 20042004-07-13
"Andy Peters" <Bassman59a@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9a2c3a75.0407131029.137e7596@posting.google.com...> paul_sereno@hotmail.com (Paul Sereno) wrote in messagenews:<3d7510b4.0407021019.c3a5df5@posting.google.com>...> > I am just wandering if any of you have take a look at the Lattice > > FPGAs. I do like the DSP functions. > > is out there any serious comparation against SpartanIII and Cyclone? > > The local Lattice FAE gave us the low-down. Looks like a decent set > of chips. > > One thing we REALLY liked is that if you go with the devices that use > an external configuration EPROM (rather than the family with the > internal config flash), you can use a standard (read: CHEAP) SPI > device, rather than a non-cheap specific config chip. > > I've always wondered why Brand A and Brand X continue to use their > expensive config parts. Actually, that's not true -- I know why. > Seriously, what's the point of using a $10 FPGA when the config EPROM > is also $10?Altera has addressed this problem with the Cyclone family - the configuration devices are quite cheap. Leon
Reply by ●July 13, 20042004-07-13
Andy Peters <Bassman59a@yahoo.com> wrote: : paul_sereno@hotmail.com (Paul Sereno) wrote in message news:<3d7510b4.0407021019.c3a5df5@posting.google.com>... : > I am just wandering if any of you have take a look at the Lattice : > FPGAs. I do like the DSP functions. : > is out there any serious comparation against SpartanIII and Cyclone? : The local Lattice FAE gave us the low-down. Looks like a decent set : of chips. : One thing we REALLY liked is that if you go with the devices that use : an external configuration EPROM (rather than the family with the : internal config flash), you can use a standard (read: CHEAP) SPI : device, rather than a non-cheap specific config chip. : I've always wondered why Brand A and Brand X continue to use their : expensive config parts. Actually, that's not true -- I know why. : Seriously, what's the point of using a $10 FPGA when the config EPROM : is also $10? X tries to come up with the XCF Series, also the XCF has still delivery problems. Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
