Past Benefits - Unclear

1. Benefits of an EDA Roadmap: U.S. Design TWG ExperienceAndrew B. KahngUC San Diego CSE & ECE Depts.abk@ucsd.eduhttp://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/

2. Past Benefits - Unclear • Benefits limited by (U.S.-dominated) EDA industry culture • No culture of roadmapping, no long-term view  not responsive to ITRS • No resources given to roadmapping  no committed involvement • Weak awareness of design and application markets  no good data • Contrast EDAC “EDA-200X” roadmap (~1997) with MEDEA, STRJ-WG1 • Difficult for EDA to embrace ITRS Design roadmap • SIA/SEMATECH legacy, U.S. (English) text responsibility, digital MPU emphasis, …  miss regional (customer) interests • Europe  Analog / mixed-signal, embedded SW • Japan  Cost-driven consumer SOC, ASIC, design productivity • NEMI, FSA roadmaps  better view of application and cost contexts • MEDEA, STRJ-WG1 roadmaps  better view of design technology • On the other hand… ITRS Design seems “basically correct” • Strong guide for academic research priorities, advanced technology R&D

3. Future Benefits – Must Be Realized • Good news: EDA now ties itself to ITRS technology nodes, “retooling cycles” • Greater roadmap awareness • Roadmap spending more bullets on design methodology, design system architecture, interoperability, etc. • Must increasingly tie to product and market types • Different drivers (performance, cost, …)  different design technologies • Must stay on message: Value of Design Technology • Cost of design >> Cost of manufacturing • Design productivity gap = Design technology gap • Shared Red Bricks: EDA must receive more of the semiconductor supply chain R&D budget