John Cooley’s Deepchip.com web-site likes to publish end-user experience with various EDA tools. On May 6, he published a posting on why a designer switched from Atrenta SpyGlass to Real Intent for CDC, Lint, and X-propagation analysis. His report details the reasons for converting to our best-in-class tool suite.
Here is the first part of the posting:
We had been using SpyGlass from Atrenta, and it worked OK for us, but we
were told by our local Real Intent sales guy that “there would be fewer
iterations for Lint, easier setup for CDC, lower-noise reporting, and
faster runtimes” — if only we evaled his tools.
REAL INTENT MERIDIAN CDC VS. ATRENTA SPYGLASS CDC
I spent one work week (5 days) evaluating Meridian CDC. We used different
designs to evaluate this tool. The first was 850K gate design that had
3 asynchronous clock domains. For the analysis setup, Meridian CDC
automatically detected all the clock/reset candidates correctly at block-
level as well as the top-level. No additions were needed for the setup
file, while our Spyglass run did require manual editing of the setup.
The Meridian runtime for this block was ~5 minutes.
The second design was 4 million gates and had 5 asynchronous clock domains.
Again the automatic clock/reset detection worked as expected. The runtime
was ~15 minutes.
Read the rest of the report on CDC, lint and X-propagation here.
Have you switched EDA tools recently? How was that experience?