counterfeit Xilinx ?

"Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote in message 
news:48ceae85-5695-477e-8ed4-ea446dca38fe@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 25, 1:14 pm, Jon Elson <el...@wustl.edu> wrote:
> Peter Alfke wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 11:58 am, Jon Elson <el...@wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> >>sky46...@trline4.org wrote:
>
> >>>Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>I got a batch of "Xilinx" Spartan XCS30 FPGAs from a Chinese
> >>>>seller, and am having problems with random failures at first
> >>>>power up. Sometimes it is a stuck I/O pin, sometimes a failure
> >>>>to configure. I first thought maybe we had an ESD problem, but
> >>>>I'm now thinking these may be counterfeit. They have white ink
> >>>>printed labels on the front, whereas other Xilinx chips have
> >>>>laser-etched labels. Also, these Spartan chips don't have the
> >>>>Spartan logo just below the Xilinx logo, like my other Xilinx
> >>>>chips. Anyone have any comments on this?
>
> >>>Photo.. ?
>
> >>OK, where should I put the photos?
>
> >>Jon
>
> > You can send it to me,and I will pass it on.
>
> OK, I will do that. I'll have to see how "macro" my camera will go.
> Do you have any comment on some date code 1999
> Spartans that are printed with white ink (not laser marked) and
> have the Xilinx logo but no Spartan logo under it? These are
> XCS30-3TQ144C parts. I just got them late last year and am having what
> looks like a 50%+ failure rate. In the past, when I got an occasional
> ESD damage event, I usually observed the chip running EXTREMELY hot or
> totally shorting out the power supply. These chips all run cool, but
> many have what seems to be a stuck output pin or they don't configure at
> all, and the pins that should be doing certain things when the PROG/
> line is cycled don't do anything. I've used several hundred of this
> particular Xilinx part in previous boards and never ran into any
> problems like this. That combined with the different markings make me
> think they could be counterfeit, maybe poor quality wafers that were
> supposed to be recycled, or something like that.
>
> Jon

Jon, I really have no comments. I do not work in the Spartan group or
even division, let alone building. I just promised to send your
picture and comments to the people in the know.
I hope the parts are fake, for I cannot imagine such a sudden surge in
failure rate from good devices.
Peter Alfke, who works in the Advanced Products (Virtex) division.

Peter,

Can you tell us if you've ever seen any counterfeit Xilinx parts? If yes, 
were they authentic die that had been repackaged or relabled, or were the 
die themselves fakes?

Thanks,
Bob

On Mar 25, 2:24=A0pm, "BobW" <nimby_NEEDS...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "Peter Alfke" <pe...@xilinx.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48ceae85-5695-477e-8ed4-ea446dca38fe@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 1:14 pm, Jon Elson <el...@wustl.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Peter Alfke wrote:
> > > On Mar 24, 11:58 am, Jon Elson <el...@wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>sky46...@trline4.org wrote:
>
> > >>>Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>I got a batch of "Xilinx" Spartan XCS30 FPGAs from a Chinese
> > >>>>seller, and am having problems with random failures at first
> > >>>>power up. Sometimes it is a stuck I/O pin, sometimes a failure
> > >>>>to configure. I first thought maybe we had an ESD problem, but
> > >>>>I'm now thinking these may be counterfeit. They have white ink
> > >>>>printed labels on the front, whereas other Xilinx chips have
> > >>>>laser-etched labels. Also, these Spartan chips don't have the
> > >>>>Spartan logo just below the Xilinx logo, like my other Xilinx
> > >>>>chips. Anyone have any comments on this?
>
> > >>>Photo.. ?
>
> > >>OK, where should I put the photos?
>
> > >>Jon
>
> > > You can send it to me,and I will pass it on.
>
> > OK, I will do that. I'll have to see how "macro" my camera will go.
> > Do you have any comment on some date code 1999
> > Spartans that are printed with white ink (not laser marked) and
> > have the Xilinx logo but no Spartan logo under it? These are
> > XCS30-3TQ144C parts. I just got them late last year and am having what
> > looks like a 50%+ failure rate. In the past, when I got an occasional
> > ESD damage event, I usually observed the chip running EXTREMELY hot or
> > totally shorting out the power supply. These chips all run cool, but
> > many have what seems to be a stuck output pin or they don't configure at=

> > all, and the pins that should be doing certain things when the PROG/
> > line is cycled don't do anything. I've used several hundred of this
> > particular Xilinx part in previous boards and never ran into any
> > problems like this. That combined with the different markings make me
> > think they could be counterfeit, maybe poor quality wafers that were
> > supposed to be recycled, or something like that.
>
> > Jon
>
> Jon, I really have no comments. I do not work in the Spartan group or
> even division, let alone building. I just promised to send your
> picture and comments to the people in the know.
> I hope the parts are fake, for I cannot imagine such a sudden surge in
> failure rate from good devices.
> Peter Alfke, who works in the Advanced Products (Virtex) division.
>
> Peter,
>
> Can you tell us if you've ever seen any counterfeit Xilinx parts? If yes,
> were they authentic die that had been repackaged or relabled, or were the
> die themselves fakes?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob

I have no recollection of fake FPGAs.My educated guess is that the die
inside were probably genuine, but either abused or not tested or test
escapes.I have never heard that somebody had the money and the
audacity to really design and make chips as complicated as ours. But I
do not have any proof. And the outside world is getting smarter and
has deeper pockets than in the past.
Xilinx definitely would like to get their hands on those chips...
Peter

BobW wrote:
> Can you tell us if you've ever seen any counterfeit Xilinx parts? If yes, 
> were they authentic die that had been repackaged or relabled, or were the 
> die themselves fakes?

  Think about it. No one is going to set up to create clone die.
The costs would be massive, for tiny, short term returns.

  Xilinx already have a path for defective (test failure/yield fallout) 
die to be sold, which is the easy-path. Those devices are 
tested/warranted for ONE or TWO bitstreams only.

  Depending on their yields/sales mix, Xilinx may have a surplus, or 
shortfall  of 'bad die' - (and as time progresses, you expect the yields 
to improve).
  So, it is possible EasyPath devices would work  with many more test
patterns.

  The OP could try a series of pgm/verify on suspect devices, to
check they can 'remember' a valid bitstream.

-jg

Peter Alfke wrote:
> 
> I have no recollection of fake FPGAs.My educated guess is that the die
> inside were probably genuine, but either abused or not tested or test
> escapes.I have never heard that somebody had the money and the
> audacity to really design and make chips as complicated as ours. But I
> do not have any proof. And the outside world is getting smarter and
> has deeper pockets than in the past.
> Xilinx definitely would like to get their hands on those chips...
Oh, well, you can certainly have 6 that I have so far confirmed 
are bad in some way.  If some Spartan expert at Xilinx can tell 
they are indeed counterfeit from the photo I sent, I guess I am 
going to have to scrap the lot of them, and so you can have 
units that have never left the tray.  (I don't know if you'd 
have any interest in electrically experimenting with them.)
The removed chips have been pretty heavily abused with our 
removal tool, the package was visibly flexing as I pried them 
from the desoldering tool.  I've NEVER seen anything like that 
before either, but I haven't desoldered a TQ144 using this tool 
before, either.  I usually just cut the leads off the body, but 
this time I wasn't sure if the problem was in the board or the 
FPGA until I had replaced the FPGA.  The last one I did, I had 
to replace the FPGA twice to get a good one!  I know that my 
procedures at my rework bench are pretty good, so I am really 
confident I didn't ESD-damage the first replacement.

If these units are NOT counterfeit, then they must have been 
salvaged in some manner that leaves them incredibly "new" 
looking, but stressed in some way.  Absolutely no sign they've 
been "fiddled with", though.

Jon

Jim Granville wrote:
> BobW wrote:
> 
>> Can you tell us if you've ever seen any counterfeit Xilinx parts? If 
>> yes, were they authentic die that had been repackaged or relabled, or 
>> were the die themselves fakes?
> 
> 
>  Think about it. No one is going to set up to create clone die.
> The costs would be massive, for tiny, short term returns.
> 
>  Xilinx already have a path for defective (test failure/yield fallout) 
> die to be sold, which is the easy-path. Those devices are 
> tested/warranted for ONE or TWO bitstreams only.
> 
>  Depending on their yields/sales mix, Xilinx may have a surplus, or 
> shortfall  of 'bad die' - (and as time progresses, you expect the yields 
> to improve).
>  So, it is possible EasyPath devices would work  with many more test
> patterns.
> 
>  The OP could try a series of pgm/verify on suspect devices, to
> check they can 'remember' a valid bitstream.
I only have a couple bitstreams for this particular Spartan 
size.  Several of the chips would not go through the basic steps 
of the load sequence, such as clearing the addr register of the 
serial PROM.  The others looked like they were mostly working, 
but had stuck output pins or failed logic internally driving 
those pins.  I really didn't want to go into a great detail 
diagnosing the problem once I was able to prove it was a bunch 
of bad chips.

Some time ago I got a tape of Analog Devices op-amps that about 
60% of them went up in smoke when the board was turned on!  On 
closer inspection, the date codes were all over the place on the 
same tape, at least an indication that the chips were salvaged 
off some production run or something.

Curiously, these troublesome Spartans have a number after the 
date code that varies.  I wouldn't expect a real counterfeiter 
to bother with that.  All the chips would have the same logo, 
part number, date code, etc. on them.  I'm still stumped.  I'm 
not doing anything different here, and I've only had one or two 
bad chips in years of making these.  I can EASILY attribute that 
to random ESD problems.  (I got 12 V into one when a wire 
touched, and a couple units were taken out by lightning, too.
I expect that.)

Jon

Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes:
>I got a batch of "Xilinx" Spartan XCS30 FPGAs from a Chinese
>seller, and am having problems with random failures at first 
>power up.  Sometimes it is a stuck I/O pin, sometimes a failure 
>to configure.  I first thought maybe we had an ESD problem, but 
>I'm now thinking these may be counterfeit.  They have white ink 
>printed labels on the front, whereas other Xilinx chips have 
>laser-etched labels.  Also, these Spartan chips don't have the 
>Spartan logo just below the Xilinx logo, like my other Xilinx 
>chips.  Anyone have any comments on this?

I have XCS10XL in TQFP100 from around 1999/2000 and they also have printed
labels. They were obtained from the official German distri at that time
(Metronik/Unique). So I guess that white ink labels are no sign of unoffical
chips...

-- 
         Georg Acher, acher@in.tum.de
         http://www.lrr.in.tum.de/~acher
         "Oh no, not again !" The bowl of petunias

On Mar 23, 5:40=A0pm, Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> I got a batch of "Xilinx" Spartan XCS30 FPGAs from a Chinese
> seller, and am having problems with random failures at first
> power up. =A0Sometimes it is a stuck I/O pin, sometimes a failure
> to configure. =A0I first thought maybe we had an ESD problem, but
> I'm now thinking these may be counterfeit. =A0They have white ink
> printed labels on the front, whereas other Xilinx chips have
> laser-etched labels. =A0Also, these Spartan chips don't have the
> Spartan logo just below the Xilinx logo, like my other Xilinx
> chips. =A0Anyone have any comments on this?
>
> Jon


Hi Jon,

I am an independent distributor of electronic components. Most of the
product I supply comes from fortune  500 OEM's , but occasionally we
do have to go to the broker market.  Only in very extreme cases would
we buy product from China. I would guess that about 95% of the product
that is coming out of China brokers/traders is counterfeit.  Who is
the company you bought them from? Are they in Shenzhen? It is a very
bad sign if they did come from that area.

We have a very strong quality department and know most of the tricks
these companies are using. I would be  more than happy to assist in
verifying if you have authentic product. From what I have read, I
doubt it, but to be fair I typically have a negative attitude towards
product coming from China. Please give me a call and I will be more
than happy to give you my insight and maybe be able to help you avoid
having future problems with buying from China.

I mentioned that I supply product from fortune 500 OEM's. I would like
you to know that normally the product is in my stock. I am able to do
this as we hold inventory for these OEM's on a VMI or SMI agreements
that we have with the OEM's. They allow me to borrow some of their
material to fill critical needs of other customers. Just about all my
inventory is purchased direct from the factory or franchise
distribution.

Jon E. Hansen
Strategic Sales
Pyramid Technologies Inc.
jon@pyramidemail.com
www.pyramidtechnologiesinc.com
(949)864-7745 Direct
(888)288-8913 Ext. 205
(949)636-1416 Cell
(949)864-1869 Fax
CERTIFIED ISO 9001:2000

Georg Acher wrote:
> Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes:
> 
>>I got a batch of "Xilinx" Spartan XCS30 FPGAs from a Chinese
>>seller, and am having problems with random failures at first 
>>power up.  Sometimes it is a stuck I/O pin, sometimes a failure 
>>to configure.  I first thought maybe we had an ESD problem, but 
>>I'm now thinking these may be counterfeit.  They have white ink 
>>printed labels on the front, whereas other Xilinx chips have 
>>laser-etched labels.  Also, these Spartan chips don't have the 
>>Spartan logo just below the Xilinx logo, like my other Xilinx 
>>chips.  Anyone have any comments on this?
> 
> 
> I have XCS10XL in TQFP100 from around 1999/2000 and they also have printed
> labels. They were obtained from the official German distri at that time
> (Metronik/Unique). So I guess that white ink labels are no sign of unoffical
> chips...
> 

Yup, I have some test fixtures here with Spartans in them from VERY 
close to the same date code as the lot in question.  They also have a 
white printed label.  The most obvious difference is the one in the 
fixture has Spartan(tm) in big letters right under the Xilinx(tm),
while the questioned one is missing that Spartan line.  Every onter 
Spartan chip I can dig up has the Spartan marking on it, too, in 
whatever marking technology was used.  Another difference is the 
questionable one has a "weaker" label printing, under a microscope it 
looks "speckled" while the good chip looks to have very dense ink.
The speckles look a lot like looking at laser printer toner under a 
microscope.  Of course, I'm just jumping to lots of conclusions here, 
with no real basis to stand on.

When I pulled the removed chips out of the desoldering tool, they bent 
noticeably.  I thought these package materials were supposed to be 
thermosetting, and shouldn't get soft when heated to desoldering 
temperatures.  Maybe my desoldering tool was getting a lot hotter than I 
thought, but I just ran it up until I could lift the chips.

Jon

Georg Acher wrote:
> Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes:
> 
>>I got a batch of "Xilinx" Spartan XCS30 FPGAs from a Chinese
>>seller, and am having problems with random failures at first 
>>power up.  Sometimes it is a stuck I/O pin, sometimes a failure 
>>to configure.  I first thought maybe we had an ESD problem, but 
>>I'm now thinking these may be counterfeit.  They have white ink 
>>printed labels on the front, whereas other Xilinx chips have 
>>laser-etched labels.  Also, these Spartan chips don't have the 
>>Spartan logo just below the Xilinx logo, like my other Xilinx 
>>chips.  Anyone have any comments on this?
> 
> 
> I have XCS10XL in TQFP100 from around 1999/2000 and they also have printed
> labels. They were obtained from the official German distri at that time
> (Metronik/Unique). So I guess that white ink labels are no sign of unoffical
> chips...
> 

But, I have no other examples of Spartan chips which DON'T have 
the Spartan(tm) marking right below the Xilinx(tm) logo.  That 
was one of the things that made me curious, although I don't 
know why a counterfeiter would miss something that obvious.

Jon

Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes:
>Georg Acher wrote:

>> I have XCS10XL in TQFP100 from around 1999/2000 and they also have printed
>> labels. They were obtained from the official German distri at that time
>> (Metronik/Unique). So I guess that white ink labels are no sign of unoffical
>> chips...
>> 
>
>But, I have no other examples of Spartan chips which DON'T have 
>the Spartan(tm) marking right below the Xilinx(tm) logo.  That 
>was one of the things that made me curious, although I don't 
>know why a counterfeiter would miss something that obvious.

My XCS10XL have 5 lines: Xilinx-logo, type, package and date code, lot code and
speed grade. No "Spartan". Maybe it's not on the TQFP/VQFP100 package because
auf the limited area...

-- 
         Georg Acher, acher@in.tum.de
         http://www.lrr.in.tum.de/~acher
         "Oh no, not again !" The bowl of petunias