Availability of Spartan3

Does anyone know if there is a specific problem leading to long lead
times for the Spartan3. Someone from one of the major distribitors said
there was. Also, Xilinx no longer sells the Spartan3 on the website,
whereas they used to do so.

An answer would be appreciated as I want to use this part and already
have it designed in.

I thing Steve Knapp (Applications Manager for Spartan FPGAs) posted it
quite succinctly:

Steve Knapp posted:
Xilinx is transitioning the lower-density Spartan-3 FPGAs (XC3S50
through
XC3S1500) from the 200 mm wafer production line to the 300 mm line.
The
larger density Spartan-3 FPGAs (XC3S2000 through XC3S5000) are already
built
exclusively on the 300 mm line.  Xilinx has a policy where we notify
customers 90 days in advance of such a change and we cannot ship
product
from the new fab unless you specifically order us to.  This gives
customers
90 days to evaluate the new material to see if it affects their
production
systems.  The details are in the following change notice.
http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/n otifications/xcn05009.pdf

Starting 1-AUG-2005, all orders will be shipped from the 300 mm line.
Until
then, all production orders for lower-density Spartan-3 FPGAs are still

shipped from the 200 mm line.  As a consequence, lead times are
artificially
increasing during the transition.  There are plenty of 300 mm devices
in
stock.  However, due to our notification policy, we can't ship you one
of
the 300 mm devices unless you specifically ask.  You can dramatically
improve delivery by appending the part number with the four-number code

"0974".  For example, "XC3S200-4PQ208C" would become
"XC3S200-4PQ208C0974".
End of quote.

I aplogize for the inconvenience and the apparent bureaucratic fumble,
but this is the best you can do. We have plenty of parts. The problem
is getting them into your hands.
Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications

On 15 Jun 2005 17:23:06 -0700, Peter Alfke wrote:

> I thing Steve Knapp (Applications Manager for Spartan FPGAs) posted it
> quite succinctly:
> 
> Steve Knapp posted:
> Xilinx is transitioning the lower-density Spartan-3 FPGAs (XC3S50
> through
> XC3S1500) from the 200 mm wafer production line to the 300 mm line.
> The
> larger density Spartan-3 FPGAs (XC3S2000 through XC3S5000) are already
> built
> exclusively on the 300 mm line.  Xilinx has a policy where we notify
> customers 90 days in advance of such a change and we cannot ship
> product
> from the new fab unless you specifically order us to.  This gives
> customers
> 90 days to evaluate the new material to see if it affects their
> production
> systems.  The details are in the following change notice.
> http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/n otifications/xcn05009.pdf
> 
> Starting 1-AUG-2005, all orders will be shipped from the 300 mm line.
> Until
> then, all production orders for lower-density Spartan-3 FPGAs are still
> 
> shipped from the 200 mm line.  As a consequence, lead times are
> artificially
> increasing during the transition.  There are plenty of 300 mm devices
> in
> stock.  However, due to our notification policy, we can't ship you one
> of
> the 300 mm devices unless you specifically ask.  You can dramatically
> improve delivery by appending the part number with the four-number code
> 
> "0974".  For example, "XC3S200-4PQ208C" would become
> "XC3S200-4PQ208C0974".
> End of quote.
> 
> I aplogize for the inconvenience and the apparent bureaucratic fumble,
> but this is the best you can do. We have plenty of parts. The problem
> is getting them into your hands.
> Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications

Is this from UMC or Toshiba? Or Both?

Will the current specifications be maintained? Or is there a new
specification to deal with the change in process/FAB?

sean wrote:
> > Is this from UMC or Toshiba? Or Both?
>
> Will the current specifications be maintained? Or is there a new
> specification to deal with the change in process/FAB?

Whether the parts are made by UMC or Toshiba (Spartan3 is not), and
whether they were born on a 200 mm or a 300 mm wafer is of no concern (
or should be of no concern) to the average user. All these parts have
to meet (and do meet) the data sheet specification.
But since there are (albeit minute) process differences and different
mask sets involved, we have to do new qualification tests ( like static
discharge) on all pins and on all internal functions. And that takes
time.
Having multiple fabs is common these days, not only for ICs, also for
raw materials, food stuff, machinery, automobiles, household goods,
books and magazines, etc. Whether a particular car is assembled in
Michigan, Canada, or Ohio should not be a major concern for the buyer.
But when you buy a whole fleet of them, you may be interested, perhaps
for reasons of consistency and tracability.

IC  mask sets and wafer sizes went through many rapid changes over the
previous decades, and few buyers were concerned, as long as the specs
were met. And the IC supplier had a lot of latitude. Now we have far
less freedom, since a smaller-geometry process automatically means a
lower supply voltage, and thus a completely new part number. In the 5-V
era, we all used to make lots of changes without telling you, unless
you were a big corporate customer. Guess how many fabs and mask
revisions Intel has on their Pentiums?  (Pentia?)

In other words, no user should be concerned about the wafer diameter.
We just try to abide by self-imposed rules. (And they, unfortunately,
led to the artificial scarcity).
Peter Alfke, from home.

Whether the long leads time have been artificially created by Xilinx or
not I would strongly suggest anyone using Spartan3s to check with their
distributor.

It isn't pretty.

Ricky

> In other words, no user should be concerned about the wafer diameter.
> We just try to abide by self-imposed rules. (And they, unfortunately,
>led to the artificial scarcity).

Dear (current) Xilinx user,

We design boards that are manufactured in quantity elsewhere, and we
depend on easy and quick availability of prototype and pre-production
quantities.  Particularly for FPGAs, where there are multiple parts in
identical packages, we often need to try one size up (for capacity) or
one size down (for cost) quickly.  We also build small runs of boards
for customer approval, always on short turn-around.

The message from Xilinx seems to be that they don't want to bother with
anyone that is not also directly responsible for the manufacture (i.e.
have the distribution relationships).  Spartan 3 parts were formerly
available even in pre-production quantities through the web store, and
it offered excellent service (so good it was definitely a plus factor
in designing in Xilinx parts).

Without the web store, there are today exactly zero distributors that
currently have, or can obtain in any reasonable time, the Spartan 3
parts we are using.  This is true whether it is from a 200mm fab or
300mm fab.  I'm sure with a good distribution relationship there are
strings that could be pulled to get something more quickly. However,
I'm not sure why we would want to spend time and use up favors for
something that should be readily available overnight in small
quantities.

It is a week since Xilinx's own representative said he would try and
find out if/when the product would be available, and no news looks like
very bad news.  To cut off supply with no notice, and fail to make any
reasonable arrangements with alternative distribution, makes us nervous
about continuing to incorporate Xilinx parts even if they do sort this
situation out. Our customers expect us to select components from
reliable suppliers that won't change the rules in the middle of the
game.

Despite their persistent enthusiasm, we have always declined to meet
with our local Altera rep because, despite the odd hiccup, we were
pretty satisfied with the Xilinx solution.  My understanding is that
Altera are more committed to multiple distribution channels and
generally superior product availability (any satisfied / dissatisfied
Altera purchasers out there to comment?).

While hoping that the Xilinx situation will improve quickly and
dramatically, past experience with semiconductor suppliers that take
their eye off the ball is that one bad decision is quickly followed by
others, and it is wise to start looking at alternatives.

We have admitted our sins, we have suggested a relatively simple
work-around (the 0974 suffix to the order code), and I can assure you
that there are strong efforts underway to correct this untenable
situation, as fast as we can. The ugly comments in this newsgroup have
been relayed to the highest (and also the lower) levels of management,
and there will be action. You have been heard, and you were right. I
have used pretty strong language internally, and I expect things to
change. 
It just takes more than a few days...
Peter Alfke, from home.

"Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1118901840.407859.104810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> We have admitted our sins, we have suggested a relatively simple
> work-around (the 0974 suffix to the order code), and I can assure you
> that there are strong efforts underway to correct this untenable
> situation, as fast as we can. The ugly comments in this newsgroup have
> been relayed to the highest (and also the lower) levels of management,
> and there will be action. You have been heard, and you were right. I
> have used pretty strong language internally, and I expect things to
> change.
> It just takes more than a few days...
> Peter Alfke, from home.
>

I am sure this is will be good news.
There are many ways and reasons, but I can say one thing:

".. 'taking the S3 OFF from the web store' - this is the one thing one
should never do .."

REALLY, I mean it.

If it was possible to sell the S3 from Xilinx webstore then there can be no
reasons
explainable to the customer why it is not possible any more. The only thing
the people will
belive is that the store is not carrying them any more because there is no
silicon to sell.
Doesnt matter what the real cause is.

If the decision to put S3 to Xilinx webstore is now considered as bad
decision internally
in Xilinx, then Xilinx should still 'stick' with it that decision and keep
carrying the S3, even
if it is making too much problems.

The Digikey - thats another issue to deal with, I used to checkout Digikey
to get price
indicators and warnings on component leadtimes. The fact that there is no S3
on Digikey
at all, is alarming itself, it means either there are no requests, no
interest in S3 or there
is no silicon, or that somewhere is a major problem of some sort.

The Memec-Avnet, due to the pending purchasing of Memec by Avnet (what is
pending
the US anti-trust court approval) I would not count that Avnet or Memec is
very interested
in anything, Memec has lots of losses, and Avnet is about to pay for those,
so both of those
have internal things to solve.

And with NuHorizon as Xilinx supplier would I not count at all. So all that
together -
it is quite understandable that customers have BIG concernes on the
availability and
about the overall situation with S3 (and other Xilinx silicon)

Antti's
5 cents to the story...

"Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org> wrote in message
news:d8r7c0$eop$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> "Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1118901840.407859.104810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > We have admitted our sins, we have suggested a relatively simple
> > work-around (the 0974 suffix to the order code), and I can assure you
> > that there are strong efforts underway to correct this untenable
> > situation, as fast as we can. The ugly comments in this newsgroup have
> > been relayed to the highest (and also the lower) levels of management,
> > and there will be action. You have been heard, and you were right. I
> > have used pretty strong language internally, and I expect things to
> > change.
> > It just takes more than a few days...
> > Peter Alfke, from home.
> >
>
> I am sure this is will be good news.
> There are many ways and reasons, but I can say one thing:
>
> ".. 'taking the S3 OFF from the web store' - this is the one thing one
> should never do .."
>
> REALLY, I mean it.
>
> If it was possible to sell the S3 from Xilinx webstore then there can be
no
> reasons
> explainable to the customer why it is not possible any more. The only
thing
> the people will
> belive is that the store is not carrying them any more because there is no
> silicon to sell.
> Doesnt matter what the real cause is.
>
> If the decision to put S3 to Xilinx webstore is now considered as bad
> decision internally
> in Xilinx, then Xilinx should still 'stick' with it that decision and keep
> carrying the S3, even
> if it is making too much problems.
>
> The Digikey - thats another issue to deal with, I used to checkout Digikey
> to get price
> indicators and warnings on component leadtimes. The fact that there is no
S3
> on Digikey
> at all, is alarming itself, it means either there are no requests, no
> interest in S3 or there
> is no silicon, or that somewhere is a major problem of some sort.
>
> The Memec-Avnet, due to the pending purchasing of Memec by Avnet (what is
> pending
> the US anti-trust court approval) I would not count that Avnet or Memec is
> very interested
> in anything, Memec has lots of losses, and Avnet is about to pay for
those,
> so both of those
> have internal things to solve.
>
> And with NuHorizon as Xilinx supplier would I not count at all. So all
that
> together -
> it is quite understandable that customers have BIG concernes on the
> availability and
> about the overall situation with S3 (and other Xilinx silicon)
>
> Antti's
> 5 cents to the story...
>
>

While Xilinx are listening can I re-enforce some of Atti's comments. I'm a
freelance designer and I never buy many parts but some of my customers buy
in the 10k+ per annum range. When I get a design contract availability of
parts for prototyping is absolutely key to the design in decision.
My experience of the large distributors (other than the catalogue guys like
Farnell and Digikey) is that they just get in the way.
Suppliers with good sample/web sales systems usually win.
For examples of how to do it right check out Microchip, Linear Technology
and TI.

Michael Kellett

On 15 Jun 2005 20:06:31 -0700, Peter Alfke wrote:

> sean wrote:
>>> Is this from UMC or Toshiba? Or Both?
>>
>> Will the current specifications be maintained? Or is there a new
>> specification to deal with the change in process/FAB?
> 
> Whether the parts are made by UMC or Toshiba (Spartan3 is not), and
> whether they were born on a 200 mm or a 300 mm wafer is of no concern (
> or should be of no concern) to the average user. All these parts have
> to meet (and do meet) the data sheet specification.

This would certainly speak to the lack of parts, the obvious reason to
migrate to 300mm wafers(I was informed that this happened a long time ago)
is increased yeild. Making this change now would indicate that the current
method is not meeting demand/yield needs. It also suggests that transition
to 300mm wafers is not seemless, as the process has to meet the existing
specification and not the other way around.

> But since there are (albeit minute) process differences and different
> mask sets involved, we have to do new qualification tests ( like static
> discharge) on all pins and on all internal functions. And that takes
> time.


> Having multiple fabs is common these days, not only for ICs, also for
> raw materials, food stuff, machinery, automobiles, household goods,
> books and magazines, etc. Whether a particular car is assembled in
> Michigan, Canada, or Ohio should not be a major concern for the buyer.
> But when you buy a whole fleet of them, you may be interested, perhaps
> for reasons of consistency and tracability.

This assumes that all FABs use the same materials and methods, or the
specification has to stretch to cover both FABs, correct? 
> 
> IC  mask sets and wafer sizes went through many rapid changes over the
> previous decades, and few buyers were concerned, as long as the specs
> were met. And the IC supplier had a lot of latitude. Now we have far
> less freedom, since a smaller-geometry process automatically means a
> lower supply voltage, and thus a completely new part number. In the 5-V
> era, we all used to make lots of changes without telling you, unless
> you were a big corporate customer. Guess how many fabs and mask
> revisions Intel has on their Pentiums?  (Pentia?)
> 
> In other words, no user should be concerned about the wafer diameter.
> We just try to abide by self-imposed rules. (And they, unfortunately,
> led to the artificial scarcity).
> Peter Alfke, from home.