Transistor count

Hi!

Could someone tell me how many transistors are integrated on the XC3S5000
Spartan-3 device?
Thank You.
Arnaldo.

-- 

More than you can count on both hands and feet, even if you count in binary
:-)

Arnaldo Oliveira wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Could someone tell me how many transistors are integrated on the XC3S5000
> Spartan-3 device?
> Thank You.
> Arnaldo.
>
> --

--
--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

I think the answer is " more than 100 million, but less than 300 million".

We are caught between embarrassment: "that's how many we need"  and
pride: "that's how good we are, to be able to make and sell that many
for a reasonable price".

An then there still are some people who really and seriously (!) think
they can calculate device reliability and MTBF from the total number of
transistors. These guys do not seem to die out, even though we have told
them, and proven to them, again and again, that such calculations are
utter nonsense.

So Ray is right, you would need another seven or eight fingers...
Peter Alfke
========================
Ray Andraka wrote:
> 
> More than you can count on both hands and feet, even if you count in binary
> :-)
> 
> Arnaldo Oliveira wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> >
> > Could someone tell me how many transistors are integrated on the XC3S5000
> > Spartan-3 device?
> > Thank You.
> > Arnaldo.
> >
> > --
> 
> --
> --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

I think that's because one of the standards counts transistors in its MTBF..
so a PAL is more reliable than an FPGA but less reliable than an HC00.

Simon

"Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote in message
news:3F6B9895.CB08B483@xilinx.com...
> I think the answer is " more than 100 million, but less than 300 million".
>
> We are caught between embarrassment: "that's how many we need"  and
> pride: "that's how good we are, to be able to make and sell that many
> for a reasonable price".
>
> An then there still are some people who really and seriously (!) think
> they can calculate device reliability and MTBF from the total number of
> transistors. These guys do not seem to die out, even though we have told
> them, and proven to them, again and again, that such calculations are
> utter nonsense.
>
> So Ray is right, you would need another seven or eight fingers...
> Peter Alfke
> ========================
> Ray Andraka wrote:
> >
> > More than you can count on both hands and feet, even if you count in
binary
> > :-)
> >
> > Arnaldo Oliveira wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Could someone tell me how many transistors are integrated on the
XC3S5000
> > > Spartan-3 device?
> > > Thank You.
> > > Arnaldo.
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > --
> > --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

Simon,

That is for the lazy folks:  if you know the reliability (from studies,
manufacturers data, etc.) you can choose to replace the "count method" with the
real data (wow, what a concept!).

The "count method" is there as a last resort, if there is no other way to gauge
reliability.  Once you see the count method numbers, it should send you
screaming to get the real data.  The standards bodies know this, and understand
this, it is just that lazy engineers just keep filling out the forms as if they
were still designing in 1968 ....

Our reliability group is happy to provide the latest and most up to date
reliability information for completing these studies properly (per the
standard).  Please make the request thru the hotline.

Austin

Simon Peacock wrote:

> I think that's because one of the standards counts transistors in its MTBF..
> so a PAL is more reliable than an FPGA but less reliable than an HC00.
>
> Simon
>
> "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote in message
> news:3F6B9895.CB08B483@xilinx.com...
> > I think the answer is " more than 100 million, but less than 300 million".
> >
> > We are caught between embarrassment: "that's how many we need"  and
> > pride: "that's how good we are, to be able to make and sell that many
> > for a reasonable price".
> >
> > An then there still are some people who really and seriously (!) think
> > they can calculate device reliability and MTBF from the total number of
> > transistors. These guys do not seem to die out, even though we have told
> > them, and proven to them, again and again, that such calculations are
> > utter nonsense.
> >
> > So Ray is right, you would need another seven or eight fingers...
> > Peter Alfke
> > ========================
> > Ray Andraka wrote:
> > >
> > > More than you can count on both hands and feet, even if you count in
> binary
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > Arnaldo Oliveira wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > Could someone tell me how many transistors are integrated on the
> XC3S5000
> > > > Spartan-3 device?
> > > > Thank You.
> > > > Arnaldo.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > >
> > > --
> > > --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

Even if it's a standard, it still is stupid.
Stupidity has a tendency to be very long-lived.
But let's hope that sanity will prevail, some day...
Peter Alfke

Simon Peacock wrote:
> 
> I think that's because one of the standards counts transistors in its MTBF..
> so a PAL is more reliable than an FPGA but less reliable than an HC00.
> 
> Simon
> 
> "

>I think that's because one of the standards counts transistors in its MTBF..
>so a PAL is more reliable than an FPGA but less reliable than an HC00.

Many years ago, somebody told me that system reliability was
roughly:
  connectors
  solder joints
  bond wires
  on chip problems

I think the handwave was a factor of 10 each step.  (Big handwave.)

Is that still a good rough cut?  Any obvious overview article I
should scan for a modern view?

Is on-chip failure rate anything anybody should worry about these days?
What fraction of real-world failures are caused by ESD or running too
hot?  (or ...?)

-- 
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,

That is still true.

If you look at the calculation of reliability methods used by the telecom
business, the NEBS (new equipment building standards) from Telcordia (aka
Bellcore), you will find all of these items with their listed FIT rate (failures
per billion hours).

Things like fuses (100 fits), and diodes (7 fits), or connectors (10 fits per
mating pin-pair), are listed from their historical data, which can be tossed out
and replaced with your own data, or data from the manufacturer.

Austin

Hal Murray wrote:

> >I think that's because one of the standards counts transistors in its MTBF..
> >so a PAL is more reliable than an FPGA but less reliable than an HC00.
>
> Many years ago, somebody told me that system reliability was
> roughly:
>   connectors
>   solder joints
>   bond wires
>   on chip problems
>
> I think the handwave was a factor of 10 each step.  (Big handwave.)
>
> Is that still a good rough cut?  Any obvious overview article I
> should scan for a modern view?
>
> Is on-chip failure rate anything anybody should worry about these days?
> What fraction of real-world failures are caused by ESD or running too
> hot?  (or ...?)
>
> --
> 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.

"Austin Lesea" <Austin.Lesea@xilinx.com> wrote in message
news:3F6F09E4.5865169E@xilinx.com...
> Simon,
>
> That is for the lazy folks:  if you know the reliability (from studies,
> manufacturers data, etc.) you can choose to replace the "count method"
with the
> real data (wow, what a concept!).
>
> The "count method" is there as a last resort, if there is no other way to
gauge
> reliability.  Once you see the count method numbers, it should send you
> screaming to get the real data.  The standards bodies know this, and
understand
> this, it is just that lazy engineers just keep filling out the forms as if
they
> were still designing in 1968 ....

There is a story I heard some years ago, related to statistical physics, but
it should work for any statistics problem.  A person was told that the
probability of a bomb being on an airplane was 1 in 1000, but the
probability of two bombs was 1 in 1000000.  To be safe, he always brought
his own bomb on the plane.   (I think those are the numbers in the story,
which has no relation to any real planes or real bombs.)

The important thing in a large number of problems is statistical
independence.   When all the transistors on a single chip are made at the
same time, using the same process, the probability of one failing is not
statistically independent of another failing.   A bad batch of any of the
chemicals that go into the processing, various mechanical problems that
could occur, or any number of other events tend to affect all the
transistors on a chip equally.  Without statistical independence any count
based method will fail, just like in the bomb story.

-- glen

You missed the point.. I'm the engineer who has to deal with his Boss
quoting specs which I know are out moded
was just mentioning the problem as I have come across this before.. You and
I both know that a single FPGA is far more reliable than 500 transistors..
Just sometimes the piece of paper is the piece of paper.. and unless you
find a standards organisation willing to certify a new, better method, you
get left with more paper ...then, of course, you have to convince my boss
:-)  but at the moment we usually don't both with reliability reports..
there are just usual design practices used to keep the reliability as high
as possible... like don't use a 5V cap on a 5V rail :-)
Am not designing for space or aircraft so I have that luxury.

Simon


"Austin Lesea" <Austin.Lesea@xilinx.com> wrote in message
news:3F6F09E4.5865169E@xilinx.com...
> Simon,
>
> That is for the lazy folks:  if you know the reliability (from studies,
> manufacturers data, etc.) you can choose to replace the "count method"
with the
> real data (wow, what a concept!).
>
> The "count method" is there as a last resort, if there is no other way to
gauge
> reliability.  Once you see the count method numbers, it should send you
> screaming to get the real data.  The standards bodies know this, and
understand
> this, it is just that lazy engineers just keep filling out the forms as if
they
> were still designing in 1968 ....
>
> Our reliability group is happy to provide the latest and most up to date
> reliability information for completing these studies properly (per the
> standard).  Please make the request thru the hotline.
>
> Austin
>
> Simon Peacock wrote:
>
> > I think that's because one of the standards counts transistors in its
MTBF..
> > so a PAL is more reliable than an FPGA but less reliable than an HC00.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F6B9895.CB08B483@xilinx.com...
> > > I think the answer is " more than 100 million, but less than 300
million".
> > >
> > > We are caught between embarrassment: "that's how many we need"  and
> > > pride: "that's how good we are, to be able to make and sell that many
> > > for a reasonable price".
> > >
> > > An then there still are some people who really and seriously (!) think
> > > they can calculate device reliability and MTBF from the total number
of
> > > transistors. These guys do not seem to die out, even though we have
told
> > > them, and proven to them, again and again, that such calculations are
> > > utter nonsense.
> > >
> > > So Ray is right, you would need another seven or eight fingers...
> > > Peter Alfke
> > > ========================
> > > Ray Andraka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > More than you can count on both hands and feet, even if you count in
> > binary
> > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > Arnaldo Oliveira wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > Could someone tell me how many transistors are integrated on the
> > XC3S5000
> > > > > Spartan-3 device?
> > > > > Thank You.
> > > > > Arnaldo.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --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
>