Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
03/23/07 07:37
Read: times


 
#135617 - Maybe, but my needs are "different"
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Generally, I need RAM fast enough to keep up with the logic at maximal clock rates. Secondly, I need it all to reside in ONE chip. That's how I could get by with 4 I/O's. Once I use external RAM, at, say, 8 ns, my RAM has to be four times as wide, in order to transport the same amount of data, I have to add pipelines, and so on.

about those BGA's ... So far, I haven't found even one U.S. board/assembly house that can compete in this arena. They have yields which mean that, under the best of circumstances, and with the best of luck, 10% of the boards that are delivered are electrically sound. Once they're assembled, again, if I'm lucky, 1 board in 10 is functional, and it costs plenty to have 'em x-rayed in order to prove that the problem is with the BGA. The result, since the BGA costs more than the combined rest of the assembled board, in a 100x cost increase.

This result forces the manufacturing to China, where they happily produce tested boards in 1/3 the time, including shipping time, at less than 10% the cost, with 100% electrically tested boards, such that assembled board yields exceed 99%. I don't like doing business in Asia, as the culture is so different from what I've learned. Lying, stealing, etc, are not viewed in the same way as here. I've had Asian business people tell me, when I returned defective products for repair/replacment, that I shouldn't expect them to honor their agreements or their warranties. The result was that, while I'd shipped back the defective hardware, I got nothing back.

While a client might consider volume production, I won't. I seldom need more than a half dozen or maybe ten of a given application. Exceptions might be for a "standard" (at least for here) board that I can apply again and again to provide functions for my proof-of-concept work. Since I can't get good boards at reasonable prices here any longer, I stick with what's known and trusted. Perhaps I'll have something made in China in the future, but probably not here. What I get from U.S. board houses is mostly excuses.

I'm, not likely EVER to have another ASIC made. Last time was too painful. Now we just use the easy migration from programmable to fixed logic that most FPGA houses provide and use as much of their help as we can.

RE






List of 61 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
FPGA            01/01/70 00:00      
   Why on EARTH would you ask that stuff here?            01/01/70 00:00      
   Triscend, Zylogic, Actel            01/01/70 00:00      
      Triscend\'s gone quiet ... is that permanent?            01/01/70 00:00      
         Triscend is dead - now it's Zylogic            01/01/70 00:00      
            re soft-cores            01/01/70 00:00      
               So far, I've not encountered one that works at all            01/01/70 00:00      
         Published ?            01/01/70 00:00      
            Published => open source=> free, as in free beer            01/01/70 00:00      
      Actel Core8051 and Core8051s - "free"            01/01/70 00:00      
         Everyone I know refuses to use actel FPGAs            01/01/70 00:00      
            A good word for Actels            01/01/70 00:00      
            Good question            01/01/70 00:00      
               what we used to do when we gave out evaluation            01/01/70 00:00      
   VHDL Tutorial            01/01/70 00:00      
      Thanks,            01/01/70 00:00      
   Don't forget to read my extremely wonderous            01/01/70 00:00      
      ... and this thread, from a few months ago ...            01/01/70 00:00      
         so ... what did you ever do?            01/01/70 00:00      
            Not really, things change            01/01/70 00:00      
               sounds like '1553            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Yep and the optical version            01/01/70 00:00      
            I got a job!            01/01/70 00:00      
               Good for You!            01/01/70 00:00      
   related question            01/01/70 00:00      
      CPLD and FPGA            01/01/70 00:00      
         I'm not so sure ...            01/01/70 00:00      
      different feature sets, among other differences            01/01/70 00:00      
         I know the differences, thus my question            01/01/70 00:00      
      what happened?            01/01/70 00:00      
         Numbers ... what are the numbers?            01/01/70 00:00      
            Think of a number            01/01/70 00:00      
               FPGA with built-in config flash?            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RAM and Chips            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Maybe, but my needs are "different"            01/01/70 00:00      
                        you need to rethink your bga figures            01/01/70 00:00      
                           It\'s a culture thing ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                              Ive had a design reverse engineered            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 Comments and FPGAs            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 I've had one outright stolen ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    Design Security            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       do you report them            01/01/70 00:00      
                                          Reporting Crooks            01/01/70 00:00      
                  huh?            01/01/70 00:00      
                     last I heard xilinx still liked DLLs            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Unfortunately, they're useless as PLL's            01/01/70 00:00      
                           ba humbug!!            01/01/70 00:00      
                              not quite sure what happend there            01/01/70 00:00      
                              not so fast, Jez            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Maybe it\\\'s not so odd ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                        your application requirements are odd!            01/01/70 00:00      
                           I don't recommend against 'em            01/01/70 00:00      
                              evidently "my world' is unreal            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 Perhaps it is            01/01/70 00:00      
                              DLLs and locking            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 I considered that ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    re: I considered that ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       Consistent with my prior statement            01/01/70 00:00      
                                          you should try using a costas loop            01/01/70 00:00      
                                             That\\\'s for suppressed carrier, isn\\\'t it?            01/01/70 00:00      
   did u refered altera            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List