Lattice FPGA

Hi

I was hoping to get some opinions on Lattice FPGAs compared to Xilinx and
Altera. I see they have a SC device out. How does this compare to similar
devices from the other two?

Cheers

Jon

maxascent wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I was hoping to get some opinions on Lattice FPGAs compared to Xilinx and
> Altera. I see they have a SC device out. How does this compare to similar
> devices from the other two?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jon

The SC series is brand new so you might not find anyone with a socket on 
their board just yet.  It *looks* like a nice family.  3+ Gbit 
transsceivers.  90 nm.  Many 18kb mems.  Oh - no "DSP" units in the SC 
family if I recall correctly - they put those in the "volume" parts 
instead: the ECP2 family.  I like what I see.

If you have high volume needs and want some hard IP on your board, you 
can get their MACO blocks wired up as a teeny asic in your FPGA.

Hi Jon,

Generally speaking, the LatticeSC compares well with the S2GX and
(when available) the V4FX.
Though, the MACO blocks on the SCM parts are advantageous over Xilinx
and Altera. They provide hard coded functions like a 1GE/10GE MAC,
DDR1&2/QDR memory controller, full SPI4.2 interface. All these
functions need to be implemented in the FPGA fabric in V4FX and S2GX
(consuming a lot of LUTs).
The number of I/O's is comparable, but the I/O speed is well above.
So you could think that the LatticeSC is superior of V4FX and S2GX.
Of course this is my personal opinion, and I can imagine that people
in this forum will have other opinions.

Regards,

Luc

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:22:43 -0600, "maxascent"
<maxascent@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi
>
>I was hoping to get some opinions on Lattice FPGAs compared to Xilinx and
>Altera. I see they have a SC device out. How does this compare to similar
>devices from the other two?
>
>Cheers
>
>Jon

Looks nice, but...

If you could only get them (ST2GX or SC).

At least we have shipped all our backlog on xc4vFX devices.

Austin

John_H wrote:

> maxascent wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> I was hoping to get some opinions on Lattice FPGAs compared to Xilinx and
>> Altera. I see they have a SC device out. How does this compare to similar
>> devices from the other two?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jon
> 
> 
> The SC series is brand new so you might not find anyone with a socket on 
> their board just yet.  It *looks* like a nice family.  3+ Gbit 
> transsceivers.  90 nm.  Many 18kb mems.  Oh - no "DSP" units in the SC 
> family if I recall correctly - they put those in the "volume" parts 
> instead: the ECP2 family.  I like what I see.
> 
> If you have high volume needs and want some hard IP on your board, you 
> can get their MACO blocks wired up as a teeny asic in your FPGA.

wau! does it mean all FX MGT issues are solved !?

that would be good news !!

Antti

Austin Lesea wrote:
> Looks nice, but...
> 
> If you could only get them (ST2GX or SC).
> 
> At least we have shipped all our backlog on xc4vFX devices.
> 
> Austin

Are the MGTs up and running?  I'd love to prototype with the FX20.

John, Antti,

I will say that if you place an order now, you will get a real delivery 
date, and the parts will be shipped (we are not supply constrained for 
the part numbers).

For details, you really need to contact your FAE.

There are more than one sample part number for the FX20, FX60, and I 
believe now the FX100, that are available.

The FXs with MGTs are rolling out now, so that train is back on its tracks.

In all honesty, there is a lot of characterization left to do, that was 
delayed because of the changes, so we still very busy with MGTs here.

I have been lately working with some universities and schools in the XUP 
program to expedite FX parts for them (as they were the last on the 
list, so if we are getting some MGTs for them, things must be better!).

Austin

John_H wrote:

> Austin Lesea wrote:
> 
>> Looks nice, but...
>>
>> If you could only get them (ST2GX or SC).
>>
>> At least we have shipped all our backlog on xc4vFX devices.
>>
>> Austin
> 
> 
> Are the MGTs up and running?  I'd love to prototype with the FX20.

Austin Lesea wrote

> John, Antti,
>
> I will say that if you place an order now, you will get a real delivery 
> date, and the parts will be shipped (we are not supply constrained for the 
> part numbers).

Hmmm.  I think John and Antti should be careful here.

We were stuffed with XC3S200 parts because Xilinx' distribution gave us 
exactly the line Austin suggests. So we ordered a thousand or so thinking we 
would get a delivery date, and then go ahead or reschedule or cancel 
depending on the date. What happened was an immediate delivery, and they 
would not take the parts back. They will finally be used in RockyLogic's 
next product but one ;-)

So be very careful if Xilinx' outriders in distribution give you the story: 
"we cannot give a delivery date until you place an order". We have hard 
evidence that you could end up warehousing Xilinx parts until your project 
is ready for volume manufacturing. And woe betide you if your requirements 
change during development - not that ours ever do!

Not good. 

Tim,

If you order them, they will arrive.  I think that is how it is supposed 
to work?

Sometimes sooner, sometimes on time (and the objective is to never be late).

So don't blame us that we delivered an order, please!

If you did not want early delivery, then you have to change the terms, 
and get the distributor to agree to that.

I didn't say (in my previous post) "place an order," I said to contact 
your FAE for exact details on the part you want.

Unless, of course, you do want a part, then please do place an order.

Austin

Tim wrote:

> Austin Lesea wrote
> 
> 
>>John, Antti,
>>
>>I will say that if you place an order now, you will get a real delivery 
>>date, and the parts will be shipped (we are not supply constrained for the 
>>part numbers).
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  I think John and Antti should be careful here.
> 
> We were stuffed with XC3S200 parts because Xilinx' distribution gave us 
> exactly the line Austin suggests. So we ordered a thousand or so thinking we 
> would get a delivery date, and then go ahead or reschedule or cancel 
> depending on the date. What happened was an immediate delivery, and they 
> would not take the parts back. They will finally be used in RockyLogic's 
> next product but one ;-)
> 
> So be very careful if Xilinx' outriders in distribution give you the story: 
> "we cannot give a delivery date until you place an order". We have hard 
> evidence that you could end up warehousing Xilinx parts until your project 
> is ready for volume manufacturing. And woe betide you if your requirements 
> change during development - not that ours ever do!
> 
> Not good. 
> 
> 

Austin Lesea wrote

> If you order them, they will arrive.  I think that is how it is supposed 
> to work?
>
> Sometimes sooner, sometimes on time (and the objective is to never be 
> late).
>
> So don't blame us that we delivered an order, please!


Yes, I do blame Xilinx. Because the line you give out is that a delivery 
date cannot be quoted until an order is placed. And if we want to discover 
the date at which volume will be available, we have to place a large order 
for delivery ASAP. Are you familiar with Catch-22?

I am puzzled by the tone of your response. What I posted was more than 
amiable, considering the treatment dished out by your distributors (for whom 
I know you take no responsibility) and you use a public forum to dump your 
sarcasm on me. That was inappropriate.