ive) members of ECP5 family is gone on Lattice's pages.
more cost-effective than 40nm for the purpose etc) ?
se names etc) ?
I would ask what you have been smoking!??? I see parts that are not SERDES and not automotive. They are in the same table as the rest of the ECP5 no n-automotive parts, on the right. I guess they are easy to overlook on the right side of the table.
Not sure what an ICE50 would be other than a step backwards. The original devices were the ICE65 made on a 65 nm process which was very quickly repla ced with smaller, but more static power hungry ICE40 parts on a 40 nm proce ss. So ICE50 would be reversing course. Maybe ICE28, but who knows?
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Dne petek, 29. november 2019 15.21.42 UTC je oseba Rick C napisala:
ES and not automotive. They are in the same table as the rest of the ECP5 non-automotive parts, on the right. I guess they are easy to overlook on t he right side of the table.
It looks like they've been arearangig those pages. Previous version had eac h family version in separate table, with its own enclosure combinations. I've seen new version without updated headers, which was fixed shortly afte r...
l devices were the ICE65 made on a 65 nm process which was very quickly rep laced with smaller, but more static power hungry ICE40 parts on a 40 nm pro cess. So ICE50 would be reversing course. Maybe ICE28, but who knows?
I've meant to say next-gen. Didn't know that "40" signifies geometry size. But while at it, with densities that low, geometry shrink is not always opt imal, so who knows, they might do that or stay on 4onm buit use fundamental ly different process etc.
RDES and not automotive. They are in the same table as the rest of the ECP
5 non-automotive parts, on the right. I guess they are easy to overlook on the right side of the table.
ach family version in separate table, with its own enclosure combinations.
ter...
nal devices were the ICE65 made on a 65 nm process which was very quickly r eplaced with smaller, but more static power hungry ICE40 parts on a 40 nm p rocess. So ICE50 would be reversing course. Maybe ICE28, but who knows?
.
ptimal, so who knows, they might do that or stay on 4onm buit use fundament ally different process etc.
In the old days a shrink would be done on a design that reduced dimensions in the X and Y direction without changing the Z dimension features. This w as less work than a full scaling but didn't offer the full benefits (I migh t have the terms switched). I don't think they do that anymore as the deta ils involved are more complex and since these processes are not at all on t he cutting edge, but rather are well established "mature" processes at this point and so it is unlikely they would do anything other than move from on e process to the next.
I think there are issues with combining Flash with logic processes and that typically lags the state of the art by several generations. The ICE parts don't have flash, they have RAM and one time programmable PROM.
I believe the ICE parts are not about speed, rather cost, so presently the
40 nm process is "good enough". We will see what the recent competition wi ll do for that.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
ICE parts were all about low power, especially ultra-low standby power. Going to smaller nodes can be detrimental to standby power due to increased leakage. Trying to keep the standby power low when reducing the geometry can lead to speeds that are almost the same as the larger geometry, so unless you needed to pack more into the same die size you don't really buy anything. I also don't think that the ICE line is central to Lattice's future business model. ICE5 Ultra is likely the end of the line for it. (probably have to eat my words :-)
SERDES and not automotive. They are in the same table as the rest of the E CP5 non-automotive parts, on the right. I guess they are easy to overlook on the right side of the table.
d each family version in separate table, with its own enclosure combination s.
after...
ginal devices were the ICE65 made on a 65 nm process which was very quickly replaced with smaller, but more static power hungry ICE40 parts on a 40 nm process. So ICE50 would be reversing course. Maybe ICE28, but who knows?
ize.
s optimal, so who knows, they might do that or stay on 4onm buit use fundam entally different process etc.
ons in the X and Y direction without changing the Z dimension features. Th is was less work than a full scaling but didn't offer the full benefits (I might have the terms switched). I don't think they do that anymore as the details involved are more complex and since these processes are not at all on the cutting edge, but rather are well established "mature" processes at this point and so it is unlikely they would do anything other than move fro m one process to the next.
that typically lags the state of the art by several generations. The ICE p arts don't have flash, they have RAM and one time programmable PROM.
the 40 nm process is "good enough". We will see what the recent competitio n will do for that.
I believe they can optimize a given geometry for power vs. speed, but I don 't know for sure. The original 65 nm ICE65 chips had static power specs of low double digit uA. The ICE40 products are 100 uA for most I believe. T here are some very small devices ~400 LUTs that are lower and one of the ne w Ultra families get below 50 uA I believe. Still, they took a hit on this moving to 40 nm. With all the focus on low power in computing, do you thi nk they can't move down a process node or two and retain the current static levels?
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.