Spartan 3E slower that Spartan 3?

Hello guys,
I just made a quick speed test in ISE 7.1 with a Spartan 3E device. A
32-bit counter runs at 129 MHz in XC3S500E-4, but in a Spartan 3
XC3S400-4 at a higher 168 MHz. Also checked a few other desings, like
DDR SDRAM controller, and they all run about 20% slower on Spartan 3Es.
I don't get it, isn't 3E series supposed to have the same core as the
Spartan 3?

Best Regards
George

Odd,

This seems to have originated from an invalid IP address .... ?

Austin

Odd,

This seems to have originated from an invalid IP address .... ?

Austin

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:52:52 -0700, austin <austin@xilinx.com> wrote:

>Odd,
>
>This seems to have originated from an invalid IP address .... ?
>
>Austin

What's your definition of "invalid" ? As far as I can tell he is
posting over an ISP in Austria (Vienna maybe?) using a dsl connection.
Don't look for conspiracies every time your nslookup fails to work.

mk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:52:52 -0700, austin <austin@xilinx.com> wrote:
>
> >Odd,
> >
> >This seems to have originated from an invalid IP address .... ?
> >
> >Austin
>
> What's your definition of "invalid" ? As far as I can tell he is
> posting over an ISP in Austria (Vienna maybe?) using a dsl
connection.
> Don't look for conspiracies every time your nslookup fails to work.

And even if IP address was invalid, the concerns seem to be perfectly
valid.

Just compare the speedprint output of the 3s400 to the 3s500e.
Randomly sampling across different area shows that most numbers do
appear to be higher, including parts of the carry chain, which appear
to be more than 50% slower.

A simple answer that the timing values are pre-production and are
possibly overly concervative would have been a perfectly acceptable
answer.

Regards,

   Marc

Well,

Since I don't know anything about 3E (I'm in APD, not GPD), I'll leave 
them to comment on the speeds files.

But, I have been burned before by folks who are not who they seem, and 
as posting anonomously is everyone's right, but I don't have to look on 
an anonomous posting as being from a legitimate source.  And I don't 
have to reply to it either.

Austin

Hi austin,

The 193.xxx.xxx.xxx range is assigned to RIPE NCC. Why would it be invalid?

Best regards,


Ben

That's true... you don't have to reply to it.  So why did you?

Dave

"austin" <austin@xilinx.com> wrote in message 
news:d3uc09$h583@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com...
> Well,
>
> Since I don't know anything about 3E (I'm in APD, not GPD), I'll leave 
> them to comment on the speeds files.
>
> But, I have been burned before by folks who are not who they seem, and as 
> posting anonomously is everyone's right, but I don't have to look on an 
> anonomous posting as being from a legitimate source.  And I don't have to 
> reply to it either.
>
> Austin 

I know that Austin's Sunday-morning concern is valid, and it stems from
previous incidents, where unfriendly people, (sometimes referred to as
Competitors) have started anonymous mudslinging campaigns. It's so easy
to do, and hard to spot.
None of us says that this is the case with George Mercury (at least he
posts a reasonable name), but anonymity is known to be an invitation to
mischief.
That's all.
Peter Alfke
PS: Austin and I always give our company affiliation. But sometimes we
are too lazy to type, or we want to demonstrate that this is  personal
opnion, like this one. But nobody will ever accuse us of hiding...

I know that Austin's Sunday-morning concern is valid, and it stems from
previous incidents, where unfriendly people, (sometimes referred to as
Competitors) have started anonymous mudslinging campaigns. It's so easy
to do, and hard to spot.
None of us says that this is the case with George Mercury (at least he
posts a reasonable name), but anonymity is known to be an invitation to
mischief.
That's all.
Peter Alfke
PS: Austin and I always give our company affiliation. But sometimes we
are too lazy to type, or we want to demonstrate that this is  personal
opnion, like this one. But nobody will ever accuse us of hiding...