suggestion for choosing the right FPGA for gigabit transciever

Hi,

I need to chose between the Altera Stratix II GX or Stratix III GX and
some Xilinx Virtex5 FPGA for an implementation of gigabit interface
into a multi DSP system.

Could you suggest pro and cons between Altera and Xilinx (or maybe
others) for such design ?
If I'm trying to compare Altera with Xilinx FPGA based on those
websites, both are telling is better than the other.
Maybe you know and independent comparison table between those two ?

thank you,
Vasile

Vasile,

Virtex 5 LX and LXT, SXT, is in production on almost all devices, and
available now.

What isn't in production is sampling right now (and available).

http://www.xilinx.com/onlinestore/silicon/online_store_v5.htm

The serial transceivers are the lowest power of any (if that is
important to you).

We also have at least 30 serial transceiver standards tested and their
characterization reports available (XAUI, PCI express, gigabit ethernet,
fibrechannel, PCIe, HDSDI, etc. etc...).  The last ten or so standards
characterization reports are being finished as we speak.

For the serial transceivers, we have over 400 FAEs worldwide, with about
11 RocketChips(tm) Labs spread around the world where we provide all the
necessary equipment for our customers to work with our MGTs, or to learn
about the signal integrity challenges on these interfaces.

Product+Features+Characterization+Support=Success.

Austin

"vasile" <piclist9@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1175110434.467891.112950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I need to chose between the Altera Stratix II GX or Stratix III GX and
> some Xilinx Virtex5 FPGA for an implementation of gigabit interface
> into a multi DSP system.
>
> Could you suggest pro and cons between Altera and Xilinx (or maybe
> others) for such design ?
> If I'm trying to compare Altera with Xilinx FPGA based on those
> websites, both are telling is better than the other.
> Maybe you know and independent comparison table between those two ?
>
> thank you,
> Vasile

Do you need the raw power and size of those devices or do you long for 
something more cost effective do do generic workhorse processing at decent 
speeds and sizes?  If so, consider the Lattice ECP2M series as well.  They 
may also have the lowest power transceivers in the industry:

  Lattice:
    3.125Gbps Embedded SERDES (ECP2M only)
    Low 100mW power per channel

  Xilinx:
    Flexible SERDES with 100 Mbps-to-3.2 Gbps operating range supports all 
popular protocols
    Lowest power consumption in the industry: less than 100 mW per channel 
at 3.2 Gbps
      (shall we say 99.99 mW?)

The Lattice devices may not be fancy.  They are used in quads rather than 
trying to divide the functionality into smaller increments.  But if what you 
need is the raw bandwidth without super-extreme processing in between, 
consider the outsider.

In my opinion, the ECP2M product has given Lattice a strong leg up on the 
competition for a strong range of price/performance devices.

The points that are imprtant to some may not be important to others.  Are 
you concerned with:

  Power? (Is >100 mW a problem?)
  Speed? (Is 3.125Gb/s enough?)
  Cost?  (Whoa)
  Flexibility?  (How much granularity?  # of independent channels?  Channel 
width?)
  Device size?  (How many LEs/LUTs will you need?  RAM?)
  Multiplier/DSPblock functionality?  (Are there features that tip the 
balance)
  Logic speed?  (Do you need 200 MHz or 500 MHz?  Simple or complex paths?)
  Clocking?  (Do the devices support your clock source cleanly?)

I haven't seen a good apples-to-apples comparison becasue these choices and 
concerns tend to make analysis less obvious.

- John_H

John,

Maybe I can add something more:
The ECP2M is available in a 256fpBGA package. This is AFAIK the
smallest package in the industry.
If you need the more fancy stuff - you can always select the LatticeSC
or LatticeSCM. These add a lot of features combined with very high
speed (standard) I/O - up to 2Gbps (haven't seen such high speeds from
Xilinx nor Altera) and similar power figures (100mW). This device is
also available in a small footprint 256fpBGA. In my opinion this means
that the silicon is very reliable - and Lattice is well in control of
the design process of high speed I/O.

But as you said, I haven't seen any objective comparison table yet.

Luc

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:16:15 -0700, "John_H"
<newsgroup@johnhandwork.com> wrote:

>"vasile" <piclist9@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:1175110434.467891.112950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need to chose between the Altera Stratix II GX or Stratix III GX and
>> some Xilinx Virtex5 FPGA for an implementation of gigabit interface
>> into a multi DSP system.
>>
>> Could you suggest pro and cons between Altera and Xilinx (or maybe
>> others) for such design ?
>> If I'm trying to compare Altera with Xilinx FPGA based on those
>> websites, both are telling is better than the other.
>> Maybe you know and independent comparison table between those two ?
>>
>> thank you,
>> Vasile
>
>Do you need the raw power and size of those devices or do you long for 
>something more cost effective do do generic workhorse processing at decent 
>speeds and sizes?  If so, consider the Lattice ECP2M series as well.  They 
>may also have the lowest power transceivers in the industry:
>
>  Lattice:
>    3.125Gbps Embedded SERDES (ECP2M only)
>    Low 100mW power per channel
>
>  Xilinx:
>    Flexible SERDES with 100 Mbps-to-3.2 Gbps operating range supports all 
>popular protocols
>    Lowest power consumption in the industry: less than 100 mW per channel 
>at 3.2 Gbps
>      (shall we say 99.99 mW?)
>
>The Lattice devices may not be fancy.  They are used in quads rather than 
>trying to divide the functionality into smaller increments.  But if what you 
>need is the raw bandwidth without super-extreme processing in between, 
>consider the outsider.
>
>In my opinion, the ECP2M product has given Lattice a strong leg up on the 
>competition for a strong range of price/performance devices.
>
>The points that are imprtant to some may not be important to others.  Are 
>you concerned with:
>
>  Power? (Is >100 mW a problem?)
>  Speed? (Is 3.125Gb/s enough?)
>  Cost?  (Whoa)
>  Flexibility?  (How much granularity?  # of independent channels?  Channel 
>width?)
>  Device size?  (How many LEs/LUTs will you need?  RAM?)
>  Multiplier/DSPblock functionality?  (Are there features that tip the 
>balance)
>  Logic speed?  (Do you need 200 MHz or 500 MHz?  Simple or complex paths?)
>  Clocking?  (Do the devices support your clock source cleanly?)
>
>I haven't seen a good apples-to-apples comparison becasue these choices and 
>concerns tend to make analysis less obvious.
>
>- John_H
>

Yes, Lattice has the industry-smallest FBGA: the 256 pin device.  They also 
have 484, 672, and 900 ball FBGAs available as you go larger in device size. 
I would guess your point is that the higher-function devices aren't 
available in smaller sizes such as the Virtex-5 LX30T at 665 balls.

I honestly haven't looked closely at the SC/SCM devices because my 
cost/functionality point keeps me out of the "big leagues" for anything 
except initial prototypes.  I was very impressed by the Lattice offering 
that hit a niche that seems to be getting wider week by week with a product 
that has agressive cost targets and strong functionality that either meets 
or exceeds the specifications of similar (low-cost family) devices from 
other vendors.

Some engineers might hesitate a transition to a new design and tool flow 
(which might not appear terribly new once they get into it) if it's a matter 
of choosing a different "me too" device.  The ECP2M is currently without 
peer for some gigabit and high-memory needs, in my humble opinion.

- John_H


<lb.edc@telenet.be> wrote in message 
news:qp6o039sg885sf04d8cg4dgick2cbckhl2@4ax.com...
> John,
>
> Maybe I can add something more:
> The ECP2M is available in a 256fpBGA package. This is AFAIK the
> smallest package in the industry.
> If you need the more fancy stuff - you can always select the LatticeSC
> or LatticeSCM. These add a lot of features combined with very high
> speed (standard) I/O - up to 2Gbps (haven't seen such high speeds from
> Xilinx nor Altera) and similar power figures (100mW). This device is
> also available in a small footprint 256fpBGA. In my opinion this means
> that the silicon is very reliable - and Lattice is well in control of
> the design process of high speed I/O.
>
> But as you said, I haven't seen any objective comparison table yet.
>
> Luc
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:16:15 -0700, "John_H"
> <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com> wrote:
>
>>"vasile" <piclist9@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1175110434.467891.112950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I need to chose between the Altera Stratix II GX or Stratix III GX and
>>> some Xilinx Virtex5 FPGA for an implementation of gigabit interface
>>> into a multi DSP system.
>>>
>>> Could you suggest pro and cons between Altera and Xilinx (or maybe
>>> others) for such design ?
>>> If I'm trying to compare Altera with Xilinx FPGA based on those
>>> websites, both are telling is better than the other.
>>> Maybe you know and independent comparison table between those two ?
>>>
>>> thank you,
>>> Vasile
>>
>>Do you need the raw power and size of those devices or do you long for
>>something more cost effective do do generic workhorse processing at decent
>>speeds and sizes?  If so, consider the Lattice ECP2M series as well.  They
>>may also have the lowest power transceivers in the industry:
>>
>>  Lattice:
>>    3.125Gbps Embedded SERDES (ECP2M only)
>>    Low 100mW power per channel
>>
>>  Xilinx:
>>    Flexible SERDES with 100 Mbps-to-3.2 Gbps operating range supports all
>>popular protocols
>>    Lowest power consumption in the industry: less than 100 mW per channel
>>at 3.2 Gbps
>>      (shall we say 99.99 mW?)
>>
>>The Lattice devices may not be fancy.  They are used in quads rather than
>>trying to divide the functionality into smaller increments.  But if what 
>>you
>>need is the raw bandwidth without super-extreme processing in between,
>>consider the outsider.
>>
>>In my opinion, the ECP2M product has given Lattice a strong leg up on the
>>competition for a strong range of price/performance devices.
>>
>>The points that are imprtant to some may not be important to others.  Are
>>you concerned with:
>>
>>  Power? (Is >100 mW a problem?)
>>  Speed? (Is 3.125Gb/s enough?)
>>  Cost?  (Whoa)
>>  Flexibility?  (How much granularity?  # of independent channels? 
>> Channel
>>width?)
>>  Device size?  (How many LEs/LUTs will you need?  RAM?)
>>  Multiplier/DSPblock functionality?  (Are there features that tip the
>>balance)
>>  Logic speed?  (Do you need 200 MHz or 500 MHz?  Simple or complex 
>> paths?)
>>  Clocking?  (Do the devices support your clock source cleanly?)
>>
>>I haven't seen a good apples-to-apples comparison becasue these choices 
>>and
>>concerns tend to make analysis less obvious.
>>
>>- John_H
>> 

> I need to chose between the Altera Stratix II GX or Stratix III GX and
> some Xilinx Virtex5 FPGA for an implementation of gigabit interface
> into a multi DSP system.
>
> Could you suggest pro and cons between Altera and Xilinx (or maybe
> others) for such design ?
> If I'm trying to compare Altera with Xilinx FPGA based on those
> websites, both are telling is better than the other.
> Maybe you know and independent comparison table between those two ?

For Stratix III GX you would have to wait a while, but for Stratix II
GX there are two nice development kits available that should help you
with selecting the right gigabit interface pretty quick and easy.

Altera Stratix II GX Transceiver Signal Integrity Development Kit Six
with full-duplex transceiver channels, brought out to SMA connectors:
http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-signal_integrity_s2gx.html

PCI Express Development Kit with Altera=AE high-speed mezzanine
connectors (HSMCs) for expansion:
http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-pciexpress_s2gx.html

Grt, Karl.