2106 | ADC | ARM7 | Atmel | Bootloader | CAN | CrossStudio | CrossWorks | DDS | ECos | Ethernet | ETM | FIFO | FLASH | FPGA | GCC | GDB | GNU | GNUARM | GPIO | I2C | IAP | IAR | JTAG | Kickstart | LCD | Linux | LPC | LPC-E2294 | LPC2000 | LPC2100 | LPC2104 | Lpc2106 | Lpc210x | LPC2114 | LPC2119 | LPC2124 | LPC2129 | Lpc2138 | LPC213x | LPC21xx | LPC2210 | LPC2212 | LPC2214 | LPC2292 | LPC2294 | LPC2xxx | LPC3128 | MCB2100 | Olimex | Philips | PWM | Rowley | RTC | RTOS | SPI | SSP | UART | UART0 | UART1 | ULINK | USB | Watchdog | Wiggler

Hi,
Last few days I have spent on learning about CPLD and FPGA. It appears that
prices of these devices are coming down. I have also found that 8 bit (pico
blaze) and 32 bit (micro blaze) micro controller are also being implemented
on FPGA.
However I was wondering about the performance of these soft micro compared
with real micro.
Any one with any experience on the list?
Warm Regards,
Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd,
10/1 IT Park, Nagpur.
Cell 9422113746



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In l...@yahoogroups.com, Mukund Deshmukh wrote:

> Last few days I have spent on learning about CPLD and FPGA. ...
> However I was wondering about the performance of these soft micro
compared
> with real micro.

I am not an expert on FPGA, but it seems to me that the power
dissipation is the main difference - the FPGAs seem to require a lot
more power. I think they run a little slower, also (probably not much
slower).

An FPGA is also more expensive and harder to use if you have to supply
external flash to hold it's logic definitions.

However, the increased power dissipation and external memory have to
be weighed against the possibility to integrate more of your logic
into the FPGA, so it might be a wise choice in some cases.

My guess is that it makes the most sense for high quantities of end
products. Anything less than 10,000 boards would probably not be cost
effective, and the key quantity where it becomes cost effective
depends on how much extra logic you can integrate.

Eric



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mukund Deshmukh"
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:48 AM
Subject: [lpc2000] FPGA and Soft Micro
> Hi,
> Last few days I have spent on learning about CPLD and FPGA. It appears
> that
> prices of these devices are coming down. I have also found that 8 bit
> (pico
> blaze) and 32 bit (micro blaze) micro controller are also being
> implemented
> on FPGA.
> However I was wondering about the performance of these soft micro compared
> with real micro.
> Any one with any experience on the list?

I've played with a few of them, implemented on a Digilent/Xilinx Spartan 3
kit (starting at $99). Performance can be much better than 'real' chips in
that clock speeds of 30 MHz or more can be achieved. It isn't really worth
using an FPGA to replace a conventional MCU unless you already have one in
your system, or you want to implement some form of parallel processing, as
expensive multi-layer boards are advisable, and they take a lot of power.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
l...@bulldoghome.com
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I'm doing a softcore CPU in a Lattice XO FPGA right now. I am using PacoBlaze, which is a pure verilog form of PicoBlaze that runs on any FPGA. These small 8 bit CPUs are very fast, easily up to 100MIPS. But these are very small processors limited to about 1024 instructions. However you can use more than one in a core. Pico takes about 300 LUTs. Even in a small FPGA you could have 10 of these. Parallel processing all you want. I'm also using an I2C soft core.

There's not much of a limit on soft core CPUs today. You can get anything you want from 8 bit tiny CPUs like Pico, 8051, Z80, AVR, to 32 bit CPUs and even MIPs processors. Just about anything.

Embedded soft core functions in FPGAs is very hot now. However, adding functions to spare space in an existing FPGA already being used is where the cost savings come from. Buying an FPGA just to have a soft core is no savings at all. It makes no sense to buy a $10 FPGA to put just a CPU in it when you can buy a better 32 bit LPC for $3. But if you have spare space left over in an FPGA, and you need a bit of "smart" processing, soft cores are ideal and then you get the CPU for free

Lots of public code for free. Try opencores.org.

Chris.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mukund Deshmukh
To: l...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:48 PM
Subject: [lpc2000] FPGA and Soft Micro
Hi,
Last few days I have spent on learning about CPLD and FPGA. It appears that
prices of these devices are coming down. I have also found that 8 bit (pico
blaze) and 32 bit (micro blaze) micro controller are also being implemented
on FPGA.
However I was wondering about the performance of these soft micro compared
with real micro.
Any one with any experience on the list?

Warm Regards,
Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd,
10/1 IT Park, Nagpur.
Cell 9422113746

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> I'm doing a softcore CPU in a Lattice XO FPGA right now. I am using
PacoBlaze, which is a pure verilog form of PicoBlaze that runs on any FPGA.
These small 8 bit CPUs are very fast, easily up to 100MIPS. But these are
very small processors limited to about 1024 instructions. However you can
use more than one in a core. Pico takes about 300 LUTs. Even in a small
FPGA you could have 10 of these. Parallel processing all you want. I'm
also using an I2C soft core.
>
> There's not much of a limit on soft core CPUs today. You can get anything
you want from 8 bit tiny CPUs like Pico, 8051, Z80, AVR, to 32 bit CPUs and
even MIPs processors. Just about anything.
>
> Embedded soft core functions in FPGAs is very hot now. However, adding
functions to spare space in an existing FPGA already being used is where the
cost savings come from. Buying an FPGA just to have a soft core is no
savings at all. It makes no sense to buy a $10 FPGA to put just a CPU in it
when you can buy a better 32 bit LPC for $3. But if you have spare space
left over in an FPGA, and you need a bit of "smart" processing, soft cores
are ideal and then you get the CPU for free
>

Thanks a lot for reply.
Does that mean that parting line between Hard CPU and Soft CPU blurring?
Who is going to win FPGA or Hard Micro?

Warm Regards,

Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd,
10/1 IT Park, Nagpur.
Cell 9422113746



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

To some extent yes. If you have to put an FPGA in a design, and then need a CPU also, that is the time to look at soft core CPUs. I was planning on using an ARM7 part with an FPGA and then realized I could do the whole thing in one chip. Cheaper and far less PCB space. In fact with the Lattice XO part I could do it with a single sided PCB because it is single supply. Easy routing. The cost difference between 4 layer and double sided paid for the FPGA ($6) entirely.

There will always be a need for both hard CPUs and soft core. If you need a lot of heavy CPU functions than a hard CPU may be best. Every design is different and each has pros and cons. Both are needed. But you will probably see more soft core CPUs utilized when an FPGA is already present. In other designs I have no FPGA and a single MCU is the obvious low cost answer. Buying FPGAs just to build a single CPU or digital filter will never be cheaper. I use to have reps try to talk me into buying a $30 FPGA just to do digital filtering that I could do with a $7 DSP. The deticated chip is cheaper.

Soft cores simply give you the option of using the extra LUTs in an existing FPGA for more tasks. When you can do that you save money and space. The trick is getting the most out of your FPGA and soft cores offer a new level of utilization beyond simple glue logic. Also, FPGAs provide one of the lowest cost solutions for small amounts of very high speed dual port SRAM. Next year more will include spare flash space for the user. Very soon you will be able to implement a very complex collection of capabilities all within a single FPGA chip for very low cost. No external regulators, no external osc, no external flash/eeprom, no external sram, no external bus engines, no external mcu. All done 100% inside the FPGA. Truely a single chip solution.

Chris.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mukund Deshmukh
To: l...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] FPGA and Soft Micro
> I'm doing a softcore CPU in a Lattice XO FPGA right now. I am using
PacoBlaze, which is a pure verilog form of PicoBlaze that runs on any FPGA.
These small 8 bit CPUs are very fast, easily up to 100MIPS. But these are
very small processors limited to about 1024 instructions. However you can
use more than one in a core. Pico takes about 300 LUTs. Even in a small
FPGA you could have 10 of these. Parallel processing all you want. I'm
also using an I2C soft core.
>
> There's not much of a limit on soft core CPUs today. You can get anything
you want from 8 bit tiny CPUs like Pico, 8051, Z80, AVR, to 32 bit CPUs and
even MIPs processors. Just about anything.
>
> Embedded soft core functions in FPGAs is very hot now. However, adding
functions to spare space in an existing FPGA already being used is where the
cost savings come from. Buying an FPGA just to have a soft core is no
savings at all. It makes no sense to buy a $10 FPGA to put just a CPU in it
when you can buy a better 32 bit LPC for $3. But if you have spare space
left over in an FPGA, and you need a bit of "smart" processing, soft cores
are ideal and then you get the CPU for free
>

Thanks a lot for reply.
Does that mean that parting line between Hard CPU and Soft CPU blurring?
Who is going to win FPGA or Hard Micro?

Warm Regards,

Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd,
10/1 IT Park, Nagpur.
Cell 9422113746

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

The Parallax Propellor is based on an Altera FPGA that has been turned into
a hard-wired chip by Altera:

http://www.parallax.com/propeller/index.asp

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
l...@bulldoghome.com
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 07:08:48 -0000, you wrote:

>--- In l...@yahoogroups.com, Mukund Deshmukh wrote:
>
>> Last few days I have spent on learning about CPLD and FPGA. ...
>> However I was wondering about the performance of these soft micro
>compared
>> with real micro.
>
>I am not an expert on FPGA, but it seems to me that the power
>dissipation is the main difference - the FPGAs seem to require a lot
>more power. I think they run a little slower, also (probably not much
>slower).
>
>An FPGA is also more expensive and harder to use if you have to supply
>external flash to hold it's logic definitions.
>
>However, the increased power dissipation and external memory have to
>be weighed against the possibility to integrate more of your logic
>into the FPGA, so it might be a wise choice in some cases.
>
>My guess is that it makes the most sense for high quantities of end
>products. Anything less than 10,000 boards would probably not be cost
>effective, and the key quantity where it becomes cost effective
>depends on how much extra logic you can integrate.
>
>Eric

There are generally 2 reasons for moving from an MCU to an FPGA - raw speed, and parallelism - an
FOGA can have lots of completely independent logic doing things simultaneously, whearas a MCU can
only ever approximate simultaneous processing with time-slicing of various kinds.

Once you find you need an FPGA, then embedding a micro in it can be worthwhile if the space is
otherwise unused, or the tight coupling to the FPGA logic is required.



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Something designed for a specific task will usually outperform a general
purpose device in both cost and efficiency, so I would suggest that the
Hard CPU isn't going away any time soon. This was highlighted very well
when a Pentium 4 at some GHz clock speed with stacks of memory was set
up against the electromechanical WWII era Colossus to crack the enigma
codes. The Colossus won hands down, despite its own operational speed
being rated at no more than 200kHz equivalent. Similarly FPGA's are a
long way yet from meeting the power/cost/performance advantage enjoyed
by microcontrollers, even though they themselves are a general purpose
design.

Al

Mukund Deshmukh wrote:

> > I'm doing a softcore CPU in a Lattice XO FPGA right now. I am using
> PacoBlaze, which is a pure verilog form of PicoBlaze that runs on any
> FPGA.
> These small 8 bit CPUs are very fast, easily up to 100MIPS. But these are
> very small processors limited to about 1024 instructions. However you can
> use more than one in a core. Pico takes about 300 LUTs. Even in a small
> FPGA you could have 10 of these. Parallel processing all you want. I'm
> also using an I2C soft core.
> >
> > There's not much of a limit on soft core CPUs today. You can get
> anything
> you want from 8 bit tiny CPUs like Pico, 8051, Z80, AVR, to 32 bit
> CPUs and
> even MIPs processors. Just about anything.
> >
> > Embedded soft core functions in FPGAs is very hot now. However, adding
> functions to spare space in an existing FPGA already being used is
> where the
> cost savings come from. Buying an FPGA just to have a soft core is no
> savings at all. It makes no sense to buy a $10 FPGA to put just a CPU
> in it
> when you can buy a better 32 bit LPC for $3. But if you have spare space
> left over in an FPGA, and you need a bit of "smart" processing, soft cores
> are ideal and then you get the CPU for free
> > Thanks a lot for reply.
> Does that mean that parting line between Hard CPU and Soft CPU blurring?
> Who is going to win FPGA or Hard Micro?
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Mukund Deshmukh,
> Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd,
> 10/1 IT Park, Nagpur.
> Cell 9422113746
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: 3/11/2006
>
>



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

A couple of years ago, I implemented the Z80 CPU in a Xilinx FPGA (T80
core from opencores.org).

With a little effort, I added and IDE interface for 2 Compact Flash
devices, brought up the CP/M 2.2 operating system, added a PS/2
keyboard and a 25x80 text display. All with one FPGA plus an external
RAM. A complete pre 1980 computer in a 300k device with a lot of room
for expansion.

Another fun application was designing a large cellular automaton to
solve the IEEE robot maze. There are 256 cells that can
simultaneously update their distance from the target based on the
distances computed by adjacent cells. Worst case solution: 256
iterations (single clock cycle). More probable: 100 cycles - around 2
uS with a 50 MHz clock. The idea was to implement a single chip
solution including sensing and motor control.

I just finished putting together a really nice logic analyzer using
the Spartan 3 Starter Board: http://www.sump.org/projects/analyzer/

I don't view FPGAs as competing with uCs. I suppose there is some
overlap but I think of the FPGA as having a completely different
application space. Somewhere between uCs and ASIC.

And having a volatile program memory is ideal for crypto applications.
Any attempt to reverse engineer the chip results in a complete loss
of the design or more specifically, the current keys.

Richard



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I agree.

When a micro-controller is not fast enough for a task, I use a FPGA as a
peripheral device. For example putting data to a DAC at 1 or 10 MHz is
too fast for a micro-controller especially when you have to worry about
interrupts and other external events that may happen around you. But you
can set up a FPGA to do it, and it will clock out the data precisely.
The micro-controller can set it up and start it, and stop it, and handle
all of the outside interaction.

I use FPGAs or lower power CPLDs as peripherals.

Kip

On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 20:03 +1030, Onestone wrote:
> Something designed for a specific task will usually outperform a
> general
> purpose device in both cost and efficiency, so I would suggest that
> the
> Hard CPU isn't going away any time soon. This was highlighted very
> well
> when a Pentium 4 at some GHz clock speed with stacks of memory was
> set
> up against the electromechanical WWII era Colossus to crack the
> enigma
> codes. The Colossus won hands down, despite its own operational speed
> being rated at no more than 200kHz equivalent. Similarly FPGA's are a
> long way yet from meeting the power/cost/performance advantage
> enjoyed
> by microcontrollers, even though they themselves are a general
> purpose
> design.
>
> Al
>
--
Kipton Moravec



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

----- Original Message -----
From: "rtstofer"
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 2:12 PM
Subject: [lpc2000] Re: FPGA and Soft Micro
>A couple of years ago, I implemented the Z80 CPU in a Xilinx FPGA (T80
> core from opencores.org).
>
> With a little effort, I added and IDE interface for 2 Compact Flash
> devices, brought up the CP/M 2.2 operating system, added a PS/2
> keyboard and a 25x80 text display. All with one FPGA plus an external
> RAM. A complete pre 1980 computer in a 300k device with a lot of room
> for expansion.
>
> Another fun application was designing a large cellular automaton to
> solve the IEEE robot maze. There are 256 cells that can
> simultaneously update their distance from the target based on the
> distances computed by adjacent cells. Worst case solution: 256
> iterations (single clock cycle). More probable: 100 cycles - around 2
> uS with a 50 MHz clock. The idea was to implement a single chip
> solution including sensing and motor control.
>
> I just finished putting together a really nice logic analyzer using
> the Spartan 3 Starter Board: http://www.sump.org/projects/analyzer/
>
> I don't view FPGAs as competing with uCs. I suppose there is some
> overlap but I think of the FPGA as having a completely different
> application space. Somewhere between uCs and ASIC.
>
> And having a volatile program memory is ideal for crypto applications.
> Any attempt to reverse engineer the chip results in a complete loss
> of the design or more specifically, the current keys.

A similar retro-computer application is John Kent's 6809 - the whole thing
fits on the Xilinx kit (including display and keyboard I/F) and runs the
Flex OS. I haven't checked the speed but it probably runs faster than a real
6809.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
l...@bulldoghome.com
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> A similar retro-computer application is John Kent's 6809 - the whole
thing
> fits on the Xilinx kit (including display and keyboard I/F) and
runs the
> Flex OS. I haven't checked the speed but it probably runs faster
than a real
> 6809.
>
> Leon

Yes, John and I worked together to port the display code and I
provided him with the keyboard interface which was just a hack of the
opencores code. I'm certain he improved it considerably.

It was my first project with an FPGA. I learned a lot but when I see
the VHDL for the logic analyzer, for example, I realize that I know
essentially nothing.

Richard



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> A couple of years ago, I implemented the Z80 CPU in a Xilinx FPGA (T80
> core from opencores.org).
>
> With a little effort, I added and IDE interface for 2 Compact Flash
> devices, brought up the CP/M 2.2 operating system, added a PS/2
> keyboard and a 25x80 text display. All with one FPGA plus an external
> RAM. A complete pre 1980 computer in a 300k device with a lot of room
> for expansion.

Although the question is totally off topic, but since list has many FPGS
expert on the list, I wish to ask,
1. What tools are recommended?
2. Which is best language?

I have already ordered SPARTAN 3E board and will get ISE 8.2 with it.

Warm Regards,
Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd,
10/1 IT Park, Nagpur.
Cell 9422113746



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mukund Deshmukh"
To:
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: FPGA and Soft Micro
>> A couple of years ago, I implemented the Z80 CPU in a Xilinx FPGA (T80
>> core from opencores.org).
>>
>> With a little effort, I added and IDE interface for 2 Compact Flash
>> devices, brought up the CP/M 2.2 operating system, added a PS/2
>> keyboard and a 25x80 text display. All with one FPGA plus an external
>> RAM. A complete pre 1980 computer in a 300k device with a lot of room
>> for expansion.
>
> Although the question is totally off topic, but since list has many FPGS
> expert on the list, I wish to ask,
> 1. What tools are recommended?
> 2. Which is best language?
>
> I have already ordered SPARTAN 3E board and will get ISE 8.2 with it.

The free manufacturer's tools are fine.

The choice of language is really between VHDL and Verilog. I much prefer
VHDL, it's based on Ada. Verilog is based on C and I can't get on with it,
although I use C.

Leon



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

>> 1. What tools are recommended?

I have used Altera Quartus, Xilinx ISE, Lattice ispLever, and QuickLogic
PASIC tools. I really don't know if I have a favorite. I love them at
times and I hate them at times. Any of the tools will basically get the job
done. Sure all have bugs here and there, or better features here or there,
but they are all very capable today. With Synplicity and ModelSim holding
such a large share of the market, nearly all of the tools rely on Synplicity
and ModelSim inside. So in that respect they all use about the same engines
underneath. Even the front end IDE cover wrappers are now very similar. A
lot of copying going on here...

There is such huge competition between the semi FPGA vendors that the tools
are driven to be functionally very similar. Personally I do not like the
SOPC system of Quartus for most work. Also that Quartus does some other
things I do not care for. The Lattice and Xilinx tools have not given me
much trouble. I loved doing designs in QuickLogic. Very powerful logic
cell structure. Xilinx is probably my second favorite for power of logic
features and flexibility. Lattice and Altera very similar.

It's a flavor of the month kind of thing. There are new parts coming out
every year. Lattice has a lot of new parts in the last couple years and
they have been picking up market share. Xilinx and Altera are the two main
800lb Gorillas.

If you look at the market survey on Opencores.Org they show Xilinx with 60%
and Altera with 35%. The rest is in the other 5%. That's a general
summary. Xilinx has very good logic and features, but I hate their 3 supply
setup.

>> 2. Which is best language?

I use Verilog, I like it. VHDL is fine too. Either will work. I think
Verilog is structured better and has a more logical syntax, but I am sure
you would find others that say the same about VHDL. Just depends on what
you are use to. Is German better than French, better than Italian, better
than Spanish, etc.

For FPGA forums, try comp.arch.fpga

Chris.



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> Although the question is totally off topic, but since list has many FPGS
> expert on the list, I wish to ask,
> 1. What tools are recommended?

There are two classes of tools: those that are free like WebPack ISE
and those that cost a LOT of money. I don't have any of those...

You will get a demo copy of the simulator. It is available for
purchase at significant additional expense.

> 2. Which is best language?

I think the differences are more regional than technical. I started
playing with VHDL because the first project I started was already
written in VHDL. I haven't bothered with Verilog because everything I
need to do can be done in VHDL. Personally, I find VHDL more
intuitive and easier to comprehend but that is because I have more
experience with it.

>
> I have already ordered SPARTAN 3E board and will get ISE 8.2 with it.

That is a lot of free software. You can go a very long way without
spending any more money.

For my simple needs, WebPack ISE is more than sufficient.

>

Richard



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Thanks Chis for detailed reply.

Warm Regards,
Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd,
10/1 IT Park, Nagpur.
Cell 9422113746
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: FPGA and Soft Micro
> >> 1. What tools are recommended?
>
> I have used Altera Quartus, Xilinx ISE, Lattice ispLever, and QuickLogic
> PASIC tools. I really don't know if I have a favorite. I love them at
> times and I hate them at times. Any of the tools will basically get the
job
> done. Sure all have bugs here and there, or better features here or
there,
> but they are all very capable today. With Synplicity and ModelSim holding
> such a large share of the market, nearly all of the tools rely on
Synplicity
> and ModelSim inside. So in that respect they all use about the same
engines
> underneath. Even the front end IDE cover wrappers are now very similar.
A
> lot of copying going on here...
>
> There is such huge competition between the semi FPGA vendors that the
tools
> are driven to be functionally very similar. Personally I do not like the
> SOPC system of Quartus for most work. Also that Quartus does some other
> things I do not care for. The Lattice and Xilinx tools have not given me
> much trouble. I loved doing designs in QuickLogic. Very powerful logic
> cell structure. Xilinx is probably my second favorite for power of logic
> features and flexibility. Lattice and Altera very similar.
>
> It's a flavor of the month kind of thing. There are new parts coming out
> every year. Lattice has a lot of new parts in the last couple years and
> they have been picking up market share. Xilinx and Altera are the two
main
> 800lb Gorillas.
>
> If you look at the market survey on Opencores.Org they show Xilinx with
60%
> and Altera with 35%. The rest is in the other 5%. That's a general
> summary. Xilinx has very good logic and features, but I hate their 3
supply
> setup.
>
> >> 2. Which is best language?
>
> I use Verilog, I like it. VHDL is fine too. Either will work. I think
> Verilog is structured better and has a more logical syntax, but I am sure
> you would find others that say the same about VHDL. Just depends on what
> you are use to. Is German better than French, better than Italian, better
> than Spanish, etc.
>
> For FPGA forums, try comp.arch.fpga
>
> Chris.



(You need to be a member of lpc2000 -- send a blank email to lpc2000-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )