So after that debacle, ALTR set up a strict methodology of SW development and testing. They also moves most of the SW development to Malaysia, keeping the hard-core innovative R&D in Toronto (and a few P&R people in San Jose). Their SW is now much better than XLNX, even though XLNX’ synthesis did improve substantially over the past 2 years or so.

XLNX has been going through a lot of changes regarding their SW development, and unfortunately it is done in a way that may be harmful. For instance at the end of 2010 they closed their Grenoble facility (mostly working on XST, their synthesis solution), without really having people than can pick up and maintain that tool. Thus customers that want to keep using the mature version of XST may experience delays when they need support. XLNX decided to switch to a different technology (see their partnership with Oasys), but they are still in the process of developing the tool, and they don’t have the framework and methodology to develop and release such a SW with ALTR’s level of quality.

One line in your blog post caught my attention by way of a google search:

“Altera has now a software powerhouse, and is meticulous about its software design and testing.”

I am very curious to know why you make these statements. I ask because I have switched from Xilinx to Lattice and am now evaluating Altera, as both of the other FPGA vendors have fallen short.

The switch comes in regards to a 2D FFT design I have created and am unable to get it to work well on both Xilinx and Lattice. Both companies have very capable hardware, on paper, but the software falls apart (very long synthesis times and rarely closes timing). I was never able to get the full-blown version of my 2D FFT working on either platform.

Having already been through two FPGA vendors in a short period of time I have put off trying Altera. But I finally did move the design and familiarized myself with the Altera software package and I am stunned! The Altera software is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two vendors! I literally let the other vendor’s software run for weeks straight and never closed timing. The same exact project in comparable silicon closed timing in Quartus II in under 40 minutes.

I still do not believe the results. I have double and triple checked my design entry and settings in the Quartus II software and it looks fine. So I have turned to the web to see if perhaps the Quartus II says one thing and then the hardware does another. Or perhaps Altera is legit?

Until I actually load this design into physical hardware and see it working, any insight into the Altera software miracle is appreciated.

Regards,

Colin

That said, most large scale users I know complain bitterly about
the Place and Route time for large designs in large FPGAs. We’re talking whole work days here…not 10 minutes.
It doesn’t get better with bigger devices.
This is one aspect of what the new FPGA startups
and IP vendors are trying to address.
Anyone, including EDA vendors, who can help reduce that time will do well.

Long time since I’ve seen you.

May this be a need for a consortium? One where everyone can share in the cost of the development of tools for the benefit of its members?

Thanks,
Jeff

Yes, low end FPGA come will free design tool, and will keep being that way. Interestingly enough, Altera *sells* it’s Quartus II pro version, so there is obviously a high-end market wiling to pay for the best results.

EDA is in a difficult position. It can sustain its presence in the FPGA market only if it produces enough revenue, while its investment in developing better FPGA tools is strongly limited (even though its ASIC experience can benefit FPGA). This is not the case for Xilinx and Altera, they have been pouring a lot of resources to get the best possible tools. We will see how Xilinx’s software rehauling is unfolding.

Well yes, FPGA companies have no point going into EDA. The question is whether EDA can have a business selling FPGA design tool. Thanks for the info on the startups you refer to, I’ll check them out.

As for the size of FPGA design, I do not have hard data. But the latest devices from Xilinx and Altera are huge (1M+ gate equivalent). Abound Logic’s device is even larger (it has 750k CLBs). Such large devices require much better tools, and EDA can provide value given its experience with high level synthesis, ASIC synthesis, and verification. The question is whether customers are ready to pay for these FPGA design tools. If they provide value –QoR, fast verification, HDL–, I believe they will. But competition will be fierce, Xilinx and Altera have huge software teams of capable people. Innovation will make the difference.

On the one hand, FPGA tools want to be free because Xilinx and Altera and others are ultimately semiconductor companies that see the tools as a loss leader for the real silicon business.

On the other hand, FPGA tools want to be expensive because they are approaching the complexity of ASIC tools, perhaps lagging ASIC tools by a few years at most.

Although they don’t call it a Freemium model, the FPGA vendors have already started to move in that direction. For low-end FPGAs there are the free tools up to a point, and then you have to pay. This is the way so many other software products and services are going online, I think it’s a natural for FPGA as well.