This is a Question to Xilinx experts. One of our customers for whom we did design (not so long ago !) an XC4044XL reports today that he has to move to a 4052 for obsolescence reason. Since I see in some posts that Xilinx is still seeling some venerable 3k parts, I'm surprised. I also find increasingly difficult to find these "mature" "classic" devices on the Xliinx Web, but I certainly understand the marketing logic behind this. Is the 4044XL production stopped ? Thx in advance, Bert Cuzeau (btw : this customer has _valid_ reasons to stick with this family for the time being)
XC4k parts obsolete ?
Started by ●April 26, 2005
Reply by ●April 26, 20052005-04-26
http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/notifications/pdn2004-21.pdf Is the discontinue notice for somw parts that had extremely low volumes. Austin info_ wrote:> This is a Question to Xilinx experts. > > One of our customers for whom we did design (not so long ago !) > an XC4044XL reports today that he has to move to a 4052 for > obsolescence reason. Since I see in some posts that Xilinx is > still seeling some venerable 3k parts, I'm surprised. > I also find increasingly difficult to find these "mature" "classic" > devices on the Xliinx Web, but I certainly understand the marketing > logic behind this. > > Is the 4044XL production stopped ? > > > Thx in advance, > > Bert Cuzeau > > (btw : this customer has _valid_ reasons to stick with this family for > the time being) >
Reply by ●April 27, 20052005-04-27
austin wrote:> http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/notifications/pdn2004-21.pdf > > Is the discontinue notice for somw parts that had extremely low volumes.Thanks Austin. The "port" won't be too difficult anyway :-) Bert
Reply by ●April 27, 20052005-04-27
"Bert Cuzeau" <_no_spa_m_info_no_underscore_@alse-fr___.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:426f3007$0$20473$626a14ce@news.free.fr...> austin wrote: > > http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/notifications/pdn2004-21.pdf > > > > Is the discontinue notice for somw parts that had extremely low volumes. > > > Thanks Austin. > The "port" won't be too difficult anyway :-) > > Bert >BTW, Atmel AT40K are claimed to be pin-compatible to xilinx XC4K, but if you can redesign to recent lowcost FPGA then thats possible preferable. antti
Reply by ●April 27, 20052005-04-27
Antti Lukats wrote:>BTW, Atmel AT40K are claimed to be pin-compatible to xilinx XC4K, >but if you can redesign to recent lowcost FPGA then thats possible >preferable. > >antti > > > >Pin compatible only in that the pin definitions matched so that you could concievably put an equivalent design (different bit stream) in the Atmel part and use it in a xilinx socket. That is where the similarities ended. The AT40K has a completely different internal architecture, and most notably does not have any fast carry logic, and instead of using LUTs for memory have small 32 bit memories for every couple of logic cells. If you compare architectures, you'll find that many Xilinx designs will not fit in the resources supplied in the "equivalent" Atmel part. -- --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
Reply by ●April 27, 20052005-04-27
Hi Ray, yes sure I forgot to mention those details.. its totally different thing internally. I was just looking at AT94 and AT40 in order to see if I could maybe have an application for them, the AT94S10 is $19, its true single chip, has onchip 25 MIPS RISC and can do dynamic reconfiguration. could be used as replacement (way more flexible) for SystemACE, that where my interest was. I still have the very secret document about all the bitstream cell bit info of the AT40K so still having ideas doing something that really benefits from dynamic reconfiguration. Antti "Ray Andraka" <ray@andraka.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:poTbe.50$c83.49@lakeread07...> Antti Lukats wrote: > > >BTW, Atmel AT40K are claimed to be pin-compatible to xilinx XC4K, > >but if you can redesign to recent lowcost FPGA then thats possible > >preferable. > > > >antti > > > > > > > > > Pin compatible only in that the pin definitions matched so that you > could concievably put an equivalent design (different bit stream) in the > Atmel part and use it in a xilinx socket. That is where the > similarities ended. The AT40K has a completely different internal > architecture, and most notably does not have any fast carry logic, and > instead of using LUTs for memory have small 32 bit memories for every > couple of logic cells. If you compare architectures, you'll find that > many Xilinx designs will not fit in the resources supplied in the > "equivalent" Atmel part. > > -- > --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 > >
Reply by ●April 27, 20052005-04-27
Thanks for the follow-up. One of the "valid" reasons I didn't give details about was that these chips are running at an ambient temperature of 175 degrees Celsius :-) This customer won't qualify a new family every now and then as you can surely guess ;-) Any semi wiling to qualify the latest chips at this temp ?
Reply by ●April 27, 20052005-04-27
Antti Lukats wrote:>Hi Ray, > >yes sure I forgot to mention those details.. its totally different thing >internally. >I was just looking at AT94 and AT40 in order to see if I could maybe have >an application for them, the AT94S10 is $19, its true single chip, has >onchip >25 MIPS RISC and can do dynamic reconfiguration. could be used as >replacement (way more flexible) for SystemACE, that where my interest was. >I still have the very secret document about all the bitstream cell bit info >of >the AT40K so still having ideas doing something that really benefits from >dynamic reconfiguration. > >Antti > > > > > >I got one of those around here somewhere too. The AT40K is getting kinda long in the tooth though. The only advantage it has over the Virtex parts is the fact that you can partially reconfigure down to the cell level, where Virtex requires you to reconfig a whole column (or a a whole column segment for V4). Regardless, the tools for partial config have never really been developed far enough to make it much more than a lab curiousity. I did make some forays into partial configuration years ago, and it was painful. As far as I've been able to determine, the design described in my dynamic video pipeline processor paper (on the website) is the first application that attempted to do partial configuration with the clock running. All the designs described in the prior literature suspended the clock while reconfiguring. Running the clock opened a whole new can of worms, and the Atmel architecture was not well suited for it because you had to be careful what order you removed and replaced wires to avoid damaging conflicts (shorts). In any event, the place and route tools are far from what is really necessary to reasonably handle dynamic partial reconfiguration. -- --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
Reply by ●April 28, 20052005-04-28
I remember that we shipped XC3000 and XC4000-type devices for down-hole (oil exploratory drilling) applications, where they were used for week-long operation at 175 degr C. We never guaranteed operation, and parameters do of course become much slower and leakier, but the customer had no functional problems. They ran into problems at 200 deg C. I doubt that any manufacturer will go to the trouble of qualifying parts at that temperature, for a very limited market. Well-designed Si should not have a serious short-time problem, but some plastic packages behave strangely above 140 degrees. Peter Alfke ==================== info_ wrote:> Thanks for the follow-up. > > One of the "valid" reasons I didn't give details about was that these > chips are running at an ambient temperature of 175 degrees Celsius:-)> This customer won't qualify a new family every now and then > as you can surely guess ;-) > > Any semi wiling to qualify the latest chips at this temp ?
Reply by ●April 28, 20052005-04-28
I remember that we shipped XC3000 and XC4000-type devices for down-hole (oil exploratory drilling) applications, where they were used for week-long operation at 175 degr C. We never guaranteed operation, and parameters do of course become much slower and leakier, but the customer had no functional problems. They ran into problems at 200 deg C. I doubt that any manufacturer will go to the trouble of qualifying parts at that temperature, for a very limited market. Well-designed Si should not have a serious short-time problem, but some plastic packages behave strangely above 140 degrees. Peter Alfke ==================== info_ wrote:> Thanks for the follow-up. > > One of the "valid" reasons I didn't give details about was that these > chips are running at an ambient temperature of 175 degrees Celsius:-)> This customer won't qualify a new family every now and then > as you can surely guess ;-) > > Any semi wiling to qualify the latest chips at this temp ?
