We are currently shipping a product that uses 13 of these chips on 4 different boards.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this?
One possibility is to rev the boards to use the XCV1000E-FG900, making minimal changes to the boards around the fpga.
Complete re-design of the boards for this old system is out of the question. Stockpiling a bunch of parts won't work because we don't know what future quantities will be and the parts are very expensive.
I think the interposer suggestion is really the best one.
With the small volume, re-design of the pcb is just not going to be worth the money spent (you will never recover it), where the interposer is a fixed cost, and a known set of issues, and although "clunky" does work...
The reality is that Xilinx does everything it can to NOT obsolete anything that is making money (or even breaking even), but we do have to look at what is NOT selling, and make some hard decisions from time to time. I do apologize: there is no way I can tell you what will be a top seller, and what will not be a top seller (part, package, or otherwise)!
I can say that I would always look carefully at the package/part/family roadmap, and choose a part that has both up, and down, resource/pins, in the chart. Now that all V5 family members have identical pinouts (can move from LX to LXT, to SXT, to FXT, in any package without relayout*), I think things should get easier (at least that is what our customers are telling us).
Austin
*If you plan for it. For example, if you go from LXT to FXT, you do need to change > aust>> What is your present volume?
It is the package that is is being obsoleted, so there is no pin-out compatible way out =2E Simplest solution: Use the "last-time buy" option, order before June
008 for delivery by June 2009, which might give you enough parts to see you through 2010 or even longer, your choice.
More work, but much (much!) lower component price: Redesign for Spartan XC3S1500, or take the opportunity to combine into a few larger Spartan3 devices.
Remember, the '1000E was introduced 8 years ago... Regards Peter Alfke, Xilinx
Surprisingly, it may be it works 'better' than the ordinary solution. This is because the interposer's power planes can be set up differently from the main PCB's power planes. Whereas the main PCB's power planes are probably a compromise for the whole circuit, the interposer's planes can be designed to be optimal for the FPGA. A more expensive stackup can be used as the interposers are small. Bypass caps can be mounted on the interposer.
Here's a link which explains better than I can.
formatting link
Anyway, good luck with it all, I've been in similar situations myself, and the usual solution is a redesign. :-(
It doesn't look so expensive. Of course it depends on PCB complexity, but let's say 1000 $ for remastering and 1000 $ for the new PCB masks. In a product where a single piece mounts 13 of those parts (AVnet sells 100 pieces of them at 963$ each!) it's quite easy to write off a 2000 $ investment.
I'm afraid PB doesn't want to pay either of us. I'm just sad that it's the end of the line for this product, since it is the project I am most proud of in my career.
I didn't go to NAB this year. I've left the business (or to be more accurate, the business left me). I went to ESC instead.
Alan, let's all agree: You do not have any problem in 2008, not a problem in 2009, and only an economical issue in 2010 and 2011. Let's not panic! Peter Alfke
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.