For those interested in Async devices, and uses : http://www.achronix.com/news.html?newsID=72&PHPSESSID=f6e19bf363bdcb02af69ce9b919f7562 It is a way's off being usable, but the numbers are impressive :) No mention of device size, but the info suggests they target the high-price/low volume user space. [ Not too many customers need -196'C :) ] .. and no mention of design tools, which may prove to be a bigger challenge than the silicon. -jg
Async FPGA ~2GHz
Started by ●April 26, 2006
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote:> For those interested in Async devices, and uses :> http://www.achronix.com/news.html?newsID=72&PHPSESSID=f6e19bf363bdcb02af69ce9b919f7562> It is a way's off being usable, but the numbers are impressive :)> No mention of device size, but the info suggests they target the > high-price/low volume user space. > [ Not too many customers need -196'C :) ]Jim, the press release tells about testing from -196C to +130C not only at -196 C...> .. and no mention of design tools, which may prove to be a bigger > challenge than the silicon.-- Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
Uwe Bonnes wrote:> Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote: > >>For those interested in Async devices, and uses : > > >>http://www.achronix.com/news.html?newsID=72&PHPSESSID=f6e19bf363bdcb02af69ce9b919f7562 > > >>It is a way's off being usable, but the numbers are impressive :) > > >> No mention of device size, but the info suggests they target the >>high-price/low volume user space. >> [ Not too many customers need -196'C :) ] > > > Jim, the press release tells about testing from -196C to +130C not only at > -196 C...I realise that, of course, - the comment still stands : Do you have an app that needs to go to -196'C ? Mars is the only deployment I can think of, most others are covered by the terrestrial Military -55'C - 125'C range. -jg
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
Jim Granville wrote:> For those interested in Async devices, and uses : > > http://www.achronix.com/news.html?newsID=72&PHPSESSID=f6e19bf363bdcb02af69ce9b919f7562 > > > It is a way's off being usable, but the numbers are impressive :) > > No mention of device size, but the info suggests they target the > high-price/low volume user space. > [ Not too many customers need -196'C :) ] > > .. and no mention of design tools, which may prove to be a bigger > challenge than the silicon. > > -jgI'm amazed they have achieved this operation over the 0.2V - 3.9V supply range. 0.2V is not much voltage at all... I would have thought transistor threshold voltages would have caused issues at such a low voltage. How are they achieving such low threshold voltages? Bevan
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
> I'm amazed they have achieved this operation over the 0.2V - 3.9V supply > range. 0.2V is not much voltage at all... I would have thought > transistor threshold voltages would have caused issues at such a low > voltage. How are they achieving such low threshold voltages?Sounds interesting to me as well, perhaps some of the other 90nm manufacturers could shed some light - does it really work? Probably not at full speed, but even at DC - do the FETs really turn on at 0.2 V? While I am not sure what this synchronous/asynchronous gimmick is all about I would say I am glad they may soon have a marketable alternative to the rest of the makers, I guess they all became a bit too big to talk to (and stay innovative). Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ Bevan Weiss wrote:> Jim Granville wrote: > > For those interested in Async devices, and uses : > > > > http://www.achronix.com/news.html?newsID=72&PHPSESSID=f6e19bf363bdcb02af69ce9b919f7562 > > > > > > It is a way's off being usable, but the numbers are impressive :) > > > > No mention of device size, but the info suggests they target the > > high-price/low volume user space. > > [ Not too many customers need -196'C :) ] > > > > .. and no mention of design tools, which may prove to be a bigger > > challenge than the silicon. > > > > -jg > > I'm amazed they have achieved this operation over the 0.2V - 3.9V supply > range. 0.2V is not much voltage at all... I would have thought > transistor threshold voltages would have caused issues at such a low > voltage. How are they achieving such low threshold voltages? > > > Bevan
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
dp, Even Intel has realized that frequency kills. Not sure why they are so excited about touting 2 GHz. The fets are running in "active mode" basically just behaving as analog (low gain) transistor amplifiers in their sub threshold regions...kinda on, kinda off, kinda inbetween. I am sure that the speed of operation is very slow down at 0.2V. At 3.9 volts on a 90nm transistor, I am guessing the lifetime to breakdown is about a week, or sooner. I'd like to see them get block RAM, processors, DLL's/PLL's, MGTs, etc. to work in the same fashion. I am sure we all know the stories of the attempts at making async microprocessors, and how they were abandoned for having far too much area, and no real performance benefits. And when async logic is running as fast as it can, it is going to have 2 to 3 times the power dissipated, as that is how many more wires and transistors are switching. Asnyc when doing nothing is very low power. I just love systems that do nothing: they end up going away (why does anyone care what a system does when it has nothing to do? Just turn it off!). Their press announcement did say that now that they have the core working, they need to get their (hardened?) IP to work, next. Without all these bells and whistles that now make up a modern FPGA offering, they are basically back in the XC2064 era: basic fabric, some IO, and no tools. One other point: their design is about 16X more area (less density) than a modern FPGA. That is going to be a real killer - <100K gates for ~$10? When the market is at 1M+ gates for <$10? Good luck. Async design is a religion, and you either believe it will save you, or you don't. I'm just a sceptic. I am still waiting to see it do something useful in the marketplace. More interesting (I think) is the (synchronous) FPOA, with its enforced pipelining, and medium grain architecture aimed at extreme DSP applications. At least that product looks like one can actually use it, and it does something. Although 30W power dissipation is just about twice what most folks can deal with. Austin dp wrote:>>I'm amazed they have achieved this operation over the 0.2V - 3.9V supply >>range. 0.2V is not much voltage at all... I would have thought >>transistor threshold voltages would have caused issues at such a low >>voltage. How are they achieving such low threshold voltages? > > > Sounds interesting to me as well, perhaps some of the other 90nm > manufacturers could shed some light - does it really work? Probably > not at full speed, but even at DC - do the FETs really turn on at 0.2 > V? > While I am not sure what this synchronous/asynchronous gimmick is > all about I would say I am glad they may soon have a marketable > alternative to the rest of the makers, I guess they all became a bit > too big to talk to (and stay innovative). > > Dimiter > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments > > http://www.tgi-sci.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Bevan Weiss wrote: > >>Jim Granville wrote: >> >>>For those interested in Async devices, and uses : >>> >>>http://www.achronix.com/news.html?newsID=72&PHPSESSID=f6e19bf363bdcb02af69ce9b919f7562 >>> >>> >>>It is a way's off being usable, but the numbers are impressive :) >>> >>> No mention of device size, but the info suggests they target the >>>high-price/low volume user space. >>> [ Not too many customers need -196'C :) ] >>> >>>.. and no mention of design tools, which may prove to be a bigger >>>challenge than the silicon. >>> >>>-jg >> >>I'm amazed they have achieved this operation over the 0.2V - 3.9V supply >>range. 0.2V is not much voltage at all... I would have thought >>transistor threshold voltages would have caused issues at such a low >>voltage. How are they achieving such low threshold voltages? >> >> >>Bevan > >
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message news:444f3d60$1@clear.net.nz...> > I realise that, of course, - the comment still stands : > Do you have an app that needs to go to -196'C ? > Mars is the only deployment I can think of, most others are > covered by the terrestrial Military -55'C - 125'C range. > > -jgHow cold does it get in space? (where no one can hear you scream) They'd potentially have another market if the increased the operating temperature well beyond 130'C - downhole applications in the oil industry, for instance.
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
>They'd potentially have another market if the increased the operating >temperature well beyond 130'C - downhole applications in the oil industry, >for instance.How hot are those ..?
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
Austin, thanks for the info. So 0.2V being > the treshold voltage is not surprising at 90nm. I had no idea where the breakthrough voltage would be, your mentioning the 3.9V makes me think it is about 5V. Not so bad, come to think we are used to reverse base emitter voltage around 6-7V (and about 3 for some really hf parts) for decades.. :-).> Without all these bells and whistles that now make up a modern FPGA > offering, they are basically back in the XC2064 era: basic fabric, some > IO, and no tools.On a side note, what did Xilinx do back then? I doubt they have made the specification of the insides public so other people could write their tools (I keep on dreaming abou that day....), what was it?> One other point: their design is about 16X more area (less density) > than a modern FPGA. That is going to be a real killer - <100K gates for > ~$10? When the market is at 1M+ gates for <$10?Well they appear to be targetting some (most likely speed) specs which are much better than the rest and hope to get into busyness based on that. If their specs are just, say, 1.something better, it will take more than that to stay alive - but if they are well connected they might well get some big contract to give them the starting kick. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ Austin Lesea wrote:> dp, > > Even Intel has realized that frequency kills. Not sure why they are so > excited about touting 2 GHz. > > The fets are running in "active mode" basically just behaving as analog > (low gain) transistor amplifiers in their sub threshold regions...kinda > on, kinda off, kinda inbetween. > > I am sure that the speed of operation is very slow down at 0.2V. > > At 3.9 volts on a 90nm transistor, I am guessing the lifetime to > breakdown is about a week, or sooner. > > I'd like to see them get block RAM, processors, DLL's/PLL's, MGTs, etc. > to work in the same fashion. I am sure we all know the stories of the > attempts at making async microprocessors, and how they were abandoned > for having far too much area, and no real performance benefits. > > And when async logic is running as fast as it can, it is going to have 2 > to 3 times the power dissipated, as that is how many more wires and > transistors are switching. Asnyc when doing nothing is very low power. > I just love systems that do nothing: they end up going away (why does > anyone care what a system does when it has nothing to do? Just turn it > off!). > > Their press announcement did say that now that they have the core > working, they need to get their (hardened?) IP to work, next. > > Without all these bells and whistles that now make up a modern FPGA > offering, they are basically back in the XC2064 era: basic fabric, some > IO, and no tools. > > One other point: their design is about 16X more area (less density) > than a modern FPGA. That is going to be a real killer - <100K gates for > ~$10? When the market is at 1M+ gates for <$10? > > Good luck. > > Async design is a religion, and you either believe it will save you, or > you don't. I'm just a sceptic. I am still waiting to see it do > something useful in the marketplace. > > More interesting (I think) is the (synchronous) FPOA, with its enforced > pipelining, and medium grain architecture aimed at extreme DSP > applications. At least that product looks like one can actually use it, > and it does something. Although 30W power dissipation is just about > twice what most folks can deal with. > > Austin > > dp wrote: > > >>I'm amazed they have achieved this operation over the 0.2V - 3.9V supply > >>range. 0.2V is not much voltage at all... I would have thought > >>transistor threshold voltages would have caused issues at such a low > >>voltage. How are they achieving such low threshold voltages? > > > > > > Sounds interesting to me as well, perhaps some of the other 90nm > > manufacturers could shed some light - does it really work? Probably > > not at full speed, but even at DC - do the FETs really turn on at 0.2 > > V? > > While I am not sure what this synchronous/asynchronous gimmick is > > all about I would say I am glad they may soon have a marketable > > alternative to the rest of the makers, I guess they all became a bit > > too big to talk to (and stay innovative). > > > > Dimiter > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments > > > > http://www.tgi-sci.com > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Bevan Weiss wrote: > > > >>Jim Granville wrote: > >> > >>>For those interested in Async devices, and uses : > >>> > >>>http://www.achronix.com/news.html?newsID=72&PHPSESSID=f6e19bf363bdcb02af69ce9b919f7562 > >>> > >>> > >>>It is a way's off being usable, but the numbers are impressive :) > >>> > >>> No mention of device size, but the info suggests they target the > >>>high-price/low volume user space. > >>> [ Not too many customers need -196'C :) ] > >>> > >>>.. and no mention of design tools, which may prove to be a bigger > >>>challenge than the silicon. > >>> > >>>-jg > >> > >>I'm amazed they have achieved this operation over the 0.2V - 3.9V supply > >>range. 0.2V is not much voltage at all... I would have thought > >>transistor threshold voltages would have caused issues at such a low > >>voltage. How are they achieving such low threshold voltages? > >> > >> > >>Bevan > > > >
Reply by ●April 26, 20062006-04-26
