December 11, 2006
Model Based Approach to DFM – Clear Shape Technologies
Please note that contributed articles, blog entries, and comments posted on EDACafe.com are the views and opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the management and staff of Internet Business Systems and its subsidiary web-sites.
They have money left. I want to speak a little bit about the fact that DFM is a little unique on the design side. Not only committed but when the companies a re competing not on technology that would solve some of the future problems but that are competing on the structure and the transactions of these arrangements. However what we have seen recently which is why we are doing as well as we are is companies are starting to create separate buckets or budgets for DFM. They recognize that these are problems and that these solutions are not available within their current structure. I was speaking more of the macro environment where the EDA companies in my opinion are not getting their value for the complex solutions they provide even for current problems. It just makes it a little challenging.
Like I said for DFM people recognize this is not replacing an existing tool. It
is actually in most instances making their existing tools work better. They are starting to create separate budgets for these kinds of tools.Do you have a vision of where Clear Shape is going in terms of product direction over the next few years?
Yeah, we do. We obviously have a plan but at this point we are not talking about that. Clearly we are developing technology that is the two products I have talked about. Of course we are leveraging what we have done.
Ca I make one point I the design side? We have found over the last 12 to 18 months and it is also relevant to your question on the foundry that designers increasing on the electrical side are forced to tackle variation issues across the board. They have to add more margin on extraction, on the library, on SPICE models and of course when they are doing timing closure. Fundamentally what OutPerforms allows them to do is silicon accurate design and then to review these margins. That leads directly to getting the maximum out of your technology. Margins were traditionally a way of addressing random variation. A lot of lithography issues I talked about are what are called
systematic variations that are patterns dependent. If you try to use the previous methods like margining and other things more suited for random variations, you end up giving up too much performance and area.
I'm out of questions.
Who do you think of DFM?
I come from an environment where from 50,000 feet the earlier you can detect and avoid a problem the better off you are. Waiting until the design is done and hoping that changes in manufacturing will improve things is not intellectually satisfying.Proliferating more and more rules addresses but does not solve the problem. It just creates more and more margins. It works but leaves a lot on the table.
I think that is probably a better summary of what we are doing than I gave.
I think that is right on. In fact a tool like InShape would stymie the need to continue to create these rules. You can always create patterns. The model ultimately has a different number of rules. I think people are seeing that potential. Moving from a rule based methodology
to a model based approach is what we recognized needed to be done. But it had to be done in a manner that would be fast enough not only to be used on the design side but to be integrated into routing and things like that even placement.
The top articles over the last two weeks as determined by the number of readers were:Synopsys Posts Financial Results for Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2006 For the fourth quarter, Synopsys reported revenue of $283.4 million, an 11 percent increase compared to $254.8 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005. Revenue for fiscal year 2006 was $1.096 billion, an increase of 10.4 percent from the $991.9 million in fiscal 2005.
Net income for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006 was $9.6 million, or $0.07 per share, compared to net loss of ($13.5) million, or ($0.09) per share, for the fourth quarter
of fiscal 2005. GAAP net income for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 was $24.3 million, or $0.17 per share, compared to net loss of ($15.5) million, or ($0.11) per share, for fiscal 2005.LSI Logic and Agere Systems to Merge in All-Stock Transaction Valued at Approximately $4.0 Billion LSI Logic Corporation and Agere Systems Inc announced that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which the companies will be combined in an all-stock transaction with an equity value of approximately $4.0 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, Agere shareholders will receive 2.16 shares of LSI for each share of Agere they own. Based on the closing stock price of LSI on December 1, 2006, this represents a value to Agere shareholders of $22.81 per share.
The combined company, to be called LSI Logic Corporation, will offer a comprehensive set of building block solutions including semiconductors, systems and related software for storage, networking and consumer electronics products. The companies had combined revenue of $3.5 billion for the 12 months ended September 30, 2006. The companies operate in more than 20 countries, with a combined workforce of approximately 9,100 employees, including nearly 4,300 engineers. The companies together own a substantial patent portfolio consisting of more than 10,000 issued and pending U.S. patents.
Open SystemC Initiative Announces Proposal for Significant Extensions to Transaction-Level Modeling (TLM) Standard The Open SystemC Initiative (OSCI), announced the delivery of the Draft SystemC Transaction-Level Modeling (TLM) 2.0 kit, containing proposed extensions to OSCI TLM application programming interface (API) standards, an open-source library implementation, and interoperable modeling examples for world-wide public review by the SystemC community. To download an open source license of the Draft TLM 2.0 kit and library implementation visitCadence Enterprise System-Level Verification Enables Predictable Software, Hardware and System Quality Cadence announced a solution for ESL verification, which combines automated hardware, embedded software and system-level verification with system-wide management and new high-performance engines. This solution, combined with the Cadence® Incisive® Plan-to-Closure Methodology, extends the traditional electronic system level approaches focused only on systems engineers and C-level tools to the rest of the
enterprise with a path from an executable plan to system-level closure. It enforces the system requirements across all engineering functions doing design and verification from an abstract system-level model and verification plan to in-system IP verification, systems integration, validation and closure.Leakage Power Reduced 240X Using Sequence/Dongbu Electronics Advanced Power-Gating Flow Sequence Design, EDA's power-aware SoC design technology leader, and Korea's Dongbu Electronics Inc., one of the world's largest pure play wafer foundries, announced test results demonstrating a 240X reduction in leakage power using their jointly developed, advanced MTCMOS power-gating flow. Power-gating design techniques significantly reduce leakage power which can easily consume up to one-half of a modern SoC's power budget if
left unchecked.Other EDA News
« Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | href='/nbc/articles/view_weekly.php?articleid=332277&page_no=6'>6 Next Page »
You can find the full EDACafe event calendar here.
To read more news, click here.
-- Jack Horgan, EDACafe.com Contributing Editor.
Be the first to review this article