Need fair opinions on choosing either Altera or Xilinx as main FPGA source

Our design department basically split in the middle with half products were designed with Altera parts and half products were designed with Xilinx parts, when talking about choosing one main FPGA source, everyone voiced different opinions. I'm about to have a new design to process digital video signal which requires large external memory, either DIMM DDR/DDR2 SDRAM or component DDR/DDR2 SDRAM. First i go for Xilinx ISE9.1 webpack, quite large program, go to CoreGen, can't find place to generate memory controller, goto Xilinx and check MIG tool, nowhere to download MIG tool for ISE9.1. guess I have to use old tool, then import to ISE9.1 and tweak it by myself. downloaded Altera quartus6.1 webpack, go to megawizard, choose memory controller, then DDR SDRAM, right there, only thing I need is to customize it, looks like it's simpler so far, since I just get started, no sure the road ahead yet, but from the beginning, look like xilinx road is bumpy. I know if I get reference design of either one, It should get the job done, I want to listen to others out there, specially those who have experience on both, what are your thoughts about both companies in term of chip performance, development tool and supports, I'd like choose a company with overall better preformance, stick with it and forget the other one

Reply to
jetq88
Loading thread data ...

I do use both vendors; I have a board where the Stratix gets its bitstream from a CoolRunner.

The choice is much more subjective than objective. They both make quality products, have good tools, and a smart support team.

There are differences, but they are small. Example petty annoyances are things like Xilinx not releasing the EDK at the same time as ISE, and the way Quartus just don't run right if it's not connected to The Internet.

The question I have is why do you feel you need to pick one vendor? It's lots of fun to have a lot of Xilinx docs floating around when the Altera rep comes to visit. ;)

Best of luck, GH

Reply to
ghelbig

This is a common situation in politics, religion and FPGAs.

I would run a simplified design through both sets of tools and decide for myself. Ease of simulation and the RTL viewers are my hot buttons.

Certainly, the designer has to choose one, but each design is a new game.

-- Mike Treseler

Reply to
Mike Treseler

That is impossible choice to make in reality. FPGA selection depends on the project, schedules, part availability, price etc. For example the FPGA vendors are not creating new product families at the same time, so one vendor is sometimes ahead and sometimes behind. As a average both A and X create good chips and tools.

Also things like packaging, io vs. logic ratio, embedded resources, io support etc. have to be considered in the selection. Easiest way is to design for both families, and decide the chip selection when there is something to synthesize and p&r. Or at least make the selection at the beginning of the project when all the requirements are known.

--Kim

Reply to
Kim Enkovaara

In late February Xilinx will release the newest MIG1.7 that works with ISE9.1i . Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter Alfke

Seems a strange rationale - in fact, you've just given an example that counters your desire to go 'one vendor shop'. If you had chosen one, could you have so easily compared the flows ? In this case, Quartus gets the tick, but Peter says Xilinx have a fix coming. Altera has nothing quite like the Coolrunner devices, and Xilinx has no answer to MAX II - so do you really want to restrict your design choices that much ? Plus there is the real benefit of sales leverage others have mentioned.

Do you have Lattice tools there ?

-jg

Reply to
Jim Granville

I'd also suggest taking a look at Lattice and the new ECP2M parts.

Ricky.

Reply to
rickystickyrick

Reply to
kayrock66

It's now late March but still no sign of MIG1.7.

This is starting to get silly.

Reply to
lnds

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.