220 likes | 316 Views
CPLD Competition. Session Objectives. Review Strengths & Weaknesses of key competitors: Lattice Vantis Altera Highlights areas to attack and win. Competitor Profile: Vantis (AMD). Old AMD PLD division now a separate fabless company dependent on AMD fabs (+ UMC for FPGA in ‘98)
E N D
Session Objectives • Review Strengths & Weaknesses of key competitors: • Lattice • Vantis • Altera • Highlights areas to attack and win
Competitor Profile: Vantis (AMD) • Old AMD PLD division • now a separate fabless company • dependent on AMD fabs (+ UMC for FPGA in ‘98) • SPLDs and CPLDs now; announced new ‘VF1’ FPGA line • Minimal software, customer service functions • management focused only on components, not solutions • relies on AMD for process development • Dropped down to 4rd largest PLD company • fell from 3rd in ‘97 behind Lattice • dependent on declining SPLD sales
Vantis Thrust Products • Mach 4LV: 3.3V Low & Mid density ISP • 32 to 256 macrocells • speeds to 7.5ns (slower than 5V devices) • good JTAG support • Mach 5LV: 3.3V High-density ISP • 128 to 512 macrocells • raw speeds to 7.5ns, but only specific input-output paths • good JTAG support • Other products • 5V versions of Mach4, Mach5 • Mach 1,2,3: Low density, some with ISP retrofit
Vantis Weaknesses (Present) • Clumsy Software • clumsy software developed by 3rd party (MINC) • re-starting in-house SW group (little effect in short term) • poor support for Mach5/LV • High prices due to high cost structure • “0.35um” process has 0.5um feature size • Mach5/LV difficult to achieve speed/utilization • path-dependent delays • block-localized features cause routing difficulties • power reduction, output enables
Vantis Weaknesses (Future) • Concern over future plans • will business be sold (and obsoleted)? • reference: Intel PLDs sold to Altera and obsoleted • Reduced CPLD focus • resources consumed by FPGA launch • slow cost migration, product improvements, software improvements
Vantis Attack Points • Attack the software • what is the software roadmap ? • Attack device volume availability • enough priority/capacity from AMD fabs? • Attack Mach5/LV architectural limitations • block-localized power reduction, OEs restricts fitting and routability • complex 3-tier routing structure, path-dependent timing • Attack technical support • call Vantis, Minc, or ? for routing issues
Competitor Profile: Lattice • 1st with ISP CPLD, but an incomplete solution • pin-locking issues • old fashioned architecture • Non-standard ISP interface (proprietary non-JTAG) • Biggest supplier of ISP CPLDs • several different but similar CPLD families • 1997 CPLD market share is about 20% • Reputation for inadequate software solution
Lattice Thrust Products • ispLSI2000V: • 3.3v ISP (de-rated 5V parts) • 2032V offers no power savings over same speed 5V 2032 • latch-up risk in mixed 3.3V/5V systems • higher cost, slower speed grades than 5V versions • ispLSI1000E/2000 • 32 to 192 macrocells • improved routing, but not enough • Other products: • ispLSI3000: large & difficult-to-use (192 to 320 macrocells) • ispLSI6000: 192 macrocells + 4.6 Kbit RAM
Lattice Weaknesses (Present) • Software performance • hampered by the restrictive silicon architecture • ease of use issues • pin-locking issues • poor routing at high utilization • Restrictive, 6-year old architecture • limited product-term allocation options • no individual output enables (OE) • block-localized clock signals
Lattice Weaknesses (Future) • Proprietary, non-standard ISP interface (ispLSI1K/2K) • difficult board integration with JTAG components • Limited to CPLD devices only • against industry trend toward a single logic vendor
Lattice Attack Points • Attack 3.3V IC deficiencies: • latch-up risk (requires significant design effort to compensate) • no or minimal power savings over 5V • slower, higher price • Attack software capability • why can’t use more than 80% device utilization? • Attack EEPROM process roadmap • what is the long-term process migration path? • Lack of JTAG on lead products (ispLSI 1K/2K)
Competitor Profile: Altera • Largest supplier of CPLDs • note: Flex 8K and 10K are not CPLDs • Company focused on IC/software technology • not focused on solutions or customer support
Altera Thrust Products • Max7000A • 3.3V ISP • no enhancements over 7000S, only fixes • Max7000S • old Max7000(E), but with ISP • 32 to 256 macrocells • Flex10K • really an FPGA, not “CPLD” • Other products: • Max9000: 300 to 560 macrocells, with ISP • Flex 8K: FPGAs called “CPLDs”
Altera Weaknesses (Present) • Pin-locking is well-known issue • especially > 100 macrocells • EEPROM-based sparse routing matrix • “2nd time fitting” is not pin-locking • Altera measures software ability to refit the same design to locked pins • veteran Max7K users burnt by pin-locking problem • 7-year-old basic architecture • less flexible vs. XC9500 in product-term allocation • no individual (p-term) output enables • only 2 global clocks
Altera Weaknesses (Future) • Proprietary EEPROM technology pushed to its limits? • persistent problems with new TSMC fab after 3+ years • slow and problem-prone roll-out of Max7000S • Market trend is for standard design language • move to VHDL erodes AHDL design wins • Architecture problems hidden by software • auto-picks bigger devices to reduce % utilization • error messages say “No” very nicely
Altera Attack Points • Attack AHDL fortress • no design portability • convert AHDL designs to VHDL • sell Foundation with VHDL upgrade • Attack reliance on old architectures and processes • XC9500 is new technology, new benefits • Attack ISP device availability, quality • sampled defective devices to customers with charge loss problems • 3 year delay on Max7000S family rollout • only 100 program/erase cycles, 10 year data retention
Pin-Locking Comparisons Xilinx XC9500 Altera Max7KS Lattice 1K/2K/3K AMD Mach5 Routability Function block fan-in Bi-directional individual product term allocation Maximum pterms/MCell Excellent 36 Yes 90 Good* 36 No 32 Poor 18/24 No 20 Good 32 No 32 Notes: * Increasingly worse with density
JTAG Comparison JTAG Instruction Altera Max7KS Lattice isp Xilinx XC9500 AMD Mach5 Capability Extest Sample/Preload Bypass Basic 1149.1 boundary scan Not in 1K/2K Yes Yes* Yes Version control USERCODE INTEST IDCODE HIGHZ Yes No No No In-system debug Yes No No No Device type ID Yes Yes No Yes Tristate pins during test Yes No No Yes Notes: * JTAG boundary-scan is NOT available in the 7032S, 7064S, and 7096S. XC9500 Benefits • Built-in version control for pattern tracking • Efficient system debugging / diagnosis
XC9500 = Most Flexible Architecture Xilinx XC9500 Altera Max7KS Lattice 1K/2K/3K AMD Mach5 Individual set, reset, clock pterms Individual OE pterm for each pin 3.3v/5v I/O Number of global clocks True / complement global clocks Global set/reset User programmable grounds Maximum # pterms per macrocell Yes Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes Yes 90 Yes No Yes 2 Yes Reset No 32 No No No 3 1K Only Reset No 20 No No Yes 4 Yes No No 32 Notes: * 7032S is the exception and does NOT provide 3.3v/5v I/O capability. Leading-Edge Architecture Benefits • Superior pin-locking architecture • Enhanced logic capability • Efficient logic implementation
Product Comparison Xilinx 9500 Altera Max7KS Lattice 1K/2K/3K AMD Mach5 Description Macrocell range Number of user I/O pins Best tPD Best fMAX 5V in-system programmable Pin-locking Endurance (pgm/erase cycles) JTAG boundary-scan Number of JTAG instructions 3.3V ISP versions 36 - 288 34 - 192 5ns 125MHz Yes Good 10,000 Yes 7 2H98 32 - 256 36 - 164 5ns 179MHz Yes Fair-Poor 100 7128+ only 4* 2Q98 32 - 320 34 - 192 5ns 180MHz Yes Poor 10,000 3K only 3 2000V 128 - 512 68 - 256 7.5ns 125MHz Yes Fair 100 Yes 6 MachLV Notes: * JTAG boundary-scan (1149.1) is NOT available in the Altera 7032S, 7064S, and 7096S.