S-III L == V5LX S-III E == V5SX S-III GX == V5xxT 1000-unit pricing starts at $549 for the EP3SL150 Quartus WebPack support for S-III to be available on 4 DEC 2006 Antti
Stratix-III announced
Started by ●November 10, 2006
Reply by ●November 10, 20062006-11-10
Personally, I am waiting for Cyclone III.... However, the homepage mention that Quartus 6.1 which comes along with S-III will have multi-processer-support (finally...). If this really delivers what it promises that would be REALLY great! (Time to buy a quad-core :-) Thomas "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1163173725.751772.29560@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> S-III L == V5LX > S-III E == V5SX > S-III GX == V5xxT > > 1000-unit pricing starts at $549 for the EP3SL150 > Quartus WebPack support for S-III to be available on 4 DEC 2006 > > Antti >
Reply by ●November 10, 20062006-11-10
Thomas Entner schrieb:> Personally, I am waiting for Cyclone III.... > > However, the homepage mention that Quartus 6.1 which comes along with S-III > will have multi-processer-support (finally...). If this really delivers what > it promises that would be REALLY great! (Time to buy a quad-core :-) > > Thomas >hm, I think I looking more for XP2 ;) but C-3 might be nice thing also Antti
Reply by ●November 10, 20062006-11-10
Reply by ●November 10, 20062006-11-10
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4554e533$1@clear.net.nz...> Thomas Entner wrote: >> Personally, I am waiting for Cyclone III.... > > what about MAX III ? >MAX III -> too small, S-III -> too expensive for our typical applications (however, the smallest S-III for a Cyclone-price would be a deal :-) But what I really wanted to say is that I am pretty euphoric about multi-processor support, if it really works well and gets compile-time down drastically. Hmm, will I have still time to post here? Thomas
Reply by ●November 11, 20062006-11-11
Thomas Entner wrote:> > But what I really wanted to say is that I am pretty euphoric about > multi-processor support, if it really works well and gets compile-time > down drastically. Hmm, will I have still time to post here?In 6.1, only a few parts of the fitter have been paralellized - think of about 15% performance increase on a quad-core. However, once the timing engines have been paralellized in 7.0 or 7.1, expect a more noticeable speedup. On the other hand, better to start saving a bit of time now and getting better over the next months than to make you wait for the whole thing to be fully paralellized for another year. Best regards, Ben
Reply by ●November 11, 20062006-11-11
"Ben Twijnstra" <btwijnstra@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:cc60$4555781c$d52e23a9$13983@news.chello.nl...> Thomas Entner wrote: >> >> But what I really wanted to say is that I am pretty euphoric about >> multi-processor support, if it really works well and gets compile-time >> down drastically. Hmm, will I have still time to post here? > > In 6.1, only a few parts of the fitter have been paralellized - think of > about 15% performance increase on a quad-core.Would have been too good to be true...> However, once the timing > engines have been paralellized in 7.0 or 7.1, expect a more noticeable > speedup. > > On the other hand, better to start saving a bit of time now and getting > better over the next months than to make you wait for the whole thing to > be > fully paralellized for another year. >Agreed. Thomas
Reply by ●November 11, 20062006-11-11
> However, once the timing > engines have been paralellized in 7.0 or 7.1, expect a more noticeable > speedup.A small correction to Ben's post: Portions of the timing engine are parallized in this release. I should also point out that in addition to parallel compile, there have been other improvements made for compile time. We're always pushing on the fitter to reduce compile by general coding & algorithm improvements, and by being more intelligent about just how much effort we spend on your design based on how tight your timing & fitting requirements are. Regards, Paul Leventis Altera Corp.
Reply by ●November 17, 20062006-11-17
How about SOPC Builder? Have any changes been made for permformance improvements while editing? I have never had a problem with long generation times but I have a encountered long delays between adding and editing components. Derek Paul Leventis wrote:> > However, once the timing > > engines have been paralellized in 7.0 or 7.1, expect a more noticeable > > speedup. > > A small correction to Ben's post: Portions of the timing engine are > parallized in this release. > > I should also point out that in addition to parallel compile, there > have been other improvements made for compile time. We're always > pushing on the fitter to reduce compile by general coding & algorithm > improvements, and by being more intelligent about just how much effort > we spend on your design based on how tight your timing & fitting > requirements are. > > Regards, > > Paul Leventis > Altera Corp.