Xilinx speed grading

I'm trying to determine the delay curve of a particular path in a Virtex2Pro -5 from min timing to max, including all points in between. Obviously I can get the two end points (min and max) from the timing analyzer, but I assume that points between the two don't necessarily fall on a straight line. I considered also plotting the max timing of the other speed grades (-7 and -6), but I don't know what their relationship to each other is, so I wouldn't know exactly where to plot them relative to the -5 max endpoint.

If anyone knows where performance graphs might exist in the Xilinx documenation, or what the relationship of speed grades to each other is, I'd be most appreciative of a response.

Thanks!

Reply to
Craig Conway
Loading thread data ...

between.

fall on

other

each

the -5

is, I'd

Reply to
Peter

Peter,

Thanks for responding. I understand pretty well the reasons behind speed binning and how artificial the boundaries are; however, there must be some overall criteria Xilinx uses to determine where to set those boundaries. When they bin their parts, they must be measuring several parameters and deciding that the aggregation of those measurements must be in a certain range to qualify as a -6. How does Xilinx decide what that range is?

Craig

Reply to
Craig Conway

Craig,

Before we fabricate the device (ie after we tape out) we examine the spice model corners, and decide what range of speed we can expect. We then decide to bin based on a yield goal into each speed bin.

Once we have the parts, we fine tune the process with our fab partners to get what we designed to (after all, if the models don't match, how in the hell can we know if it will work?). Then, by construction, we have the yield (or better) to the bins we desired.

Every technology node is different (process changes with each generation).

So, take Peter's advice,

Aust> Peter,

Reply to
Austin Lesea

Austin,

just a quick question. Do many devices fail to meet your parametric specification, i.e. have performance that does not satisfy the lowest speed grade?

Thanks,

Reply to
Jules P

If they had a significant number of parts that failed to meet the lowest speed grade but otherwise worked they would just introduce a lower speed grade. In fact Xilinx offers parts that don't work completely. Some parts have slight defects which effect only a subset of designs. You can give Xilinx a bit file and a set of test patterns and they will test their slightly defective parts to see if they will work for your application, if they do they will sell them to you at a huge discount. It's the same principle as hog butchers, they sell everything except the squeal.

Reply to
B. Joshua Rosen

"everything except the squeal"?

Now that is pretty graphic.

EasyPath(tm) is no different that selling an FPGA that has a laser fuse blown to replace a defective column of logic.

Gee, I wonder who does that with every part they sell?

Get over it: a few bad memory bits (out of 20 million) is not a "slightly defective" part -- it is >99.99985% perfect.

Austin

Reply to
Austin Lesea

Isn't being 99.99985% perfect like being 0.00015% pregnant? ;)

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design      URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave                               301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110                 301-682-7666 FAX
Reply to
rickman

ASICs would be very happy if they could promise 99.99985% testability ... Peter Alfke

Reply to
Peter

Rick,

The simple answer? No, it is not.

One bad bit doth not a bad chip make.

If it did, the entire RAM business would be out of business.

All RAM (and EPROM) use redundant rows or columns, and redundant repair (or self repair) structures.

Music CD's run with error correction correcting errors all the time (there is practically no interval where there is a single packet with 0 errors).

Cell phones work with forward error correction, and they too run in the errored region all the time.

Aust> Aust>

Reply to
Austin Lesea

Reply to
Symon

The expression "everything except the squeal" comes from Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle about the Chicago Stockyards. The Jungle caused Congress to pass the 1906 Clean Food and Drug act that created the FDA.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with EasyPath it's a good idea. I was just making the point that no chip company is going to throw out a part if there is a way to sell it. EasyPath allow you to sell parts that work with specific bit streams but not with every bit stream. The customer benefits by getting a much lower price at the cost of giving up the flexibility of being able to drop in a different bit stream. The OP was asking about parts that are slower than the slowest speed grade, I was saying if there were any significant number of parts that were failing to meet the lowest speed grade you would simply add a lower grade. It would be bad business to do anything else. The farmstand on my corner does the same thing. At the end of August they sell cases of Tomatoe seconds for $6 a case. The tomatoes are fine for sauces, but they are ugly enough that you don't want to put them in a salad. I buy a case of EasyPath tomatoes every year and use them to make a years supply of spaghetti sauce.

Reply to
B. Joshua Rosen

B,

Your analogies are so much fun!

Sounds like we are in "violent agreement."

Aust> >

Reply to
Austin Lesea

Symon,

Why are fuses so much better? They cost in area (redundant circuits which drive down yield), and they cost in test (have to blow them).

So the customer pays twice on every part for perfection more than they would for a non-redundant part, and certainly they pay more for an EasyPath(tm) part.

The fact that EasyPath parts pass a full qualification program proves their reliability, so that is not an issue either.

We do test 100% of the LUTs, IOs, clock resources, and some other features on every EasyPath part. That is how we just introduced the 'ECO feature'. If you need to change IO strength (very common), or change the logic in a LUT (that darned inversion you forgot), you can do so without any changes or worries to the test program.

If worst comes to worst, and you need to change something not tested, it turns out the probabilities that the new pattern will work are amazingly high. We will work with you to make the change, and tell you what your exposure is for parts already shipped (to operate with the new pattern).

Can't do that with an ASIC -- they are all garbage immediately for the smallest error!

That is why 'HardtoCopy' is what we abandoned ('Hardwire') years ago: no profit, no margins, sucks engineering resources dry, immense costs, tremendous headaches, unhappy customers -- hey that sounds just like the ASIC business!

The structured ASIC business has turned out to be a big yawn - so small $ and units that it is hard to see it on any charts. Who cares? Non-story. The finance folks have already written it off, and moved on to the next shell and pea game.

Getting back to EP, it turns out that most failing parts (restricted info for exact number) are bad because of one or two config bits. Also, if the volume is high enough for the EasyPath customer, we start wafers for just that customer, and test to their pattern. We would never know if these are perfect parts, or not, and we wouldn't care either (as we saved the requisite amount of money to offer the parts at the price we do). Just like an ASIC, except it has a higher test coverage, and lower PPM failure number!

"Dodgy" makes it sound like we are dumpster diving.

In reality, it is a very clever, very efficient, very useful, very cost effective product flow.

I think that certain frustrated competitors have promoted the 'EasyPath = Flawed Goods' FUD story out of desparation.

When one can introduce a whole new and useful product (profitable, too) line with $0 of IC design engineering (no tapeouts, no design), that has got to hurt!

Austin

Sym> Hi Austin,

Reply to
Austin Lesea

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.