jangray

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by jangray 13y ago

   I use both vendors' toolsets, have found occasional bugs in both, have my regrets, but all-in-all they are quite comparable, and quite remarkable for what they enable. In both tools most of my design spins take <3 minutes. If you we
2. 2.▲
   by jangray 13y ago

   Xilinx didn't choose anything, rather they simply linked to a blog (mine). These cores are more austere, smaller, simpler than MicroBlaze. http://www.fpgacpu.org/log/sep00.html#000919
3. 3.▲
   by jangray 13y ago

   "how much better" -- I didn't understand, sorry. Even with 18 years of x86 performance advances, it takes much longer to PAR the large FPGAs now than it did back in the day.
4. 4.▲
   by jangray 13y ago

   With the Xilinx ISE toolset I am currently using (which Xilinx is deprecating in favor of the new Vivado toolset) it parallelizes/multithreads poorly. I understand that the place and route algorithm is based upon simulated annealing, i
5. 5.▲
   by jangray 13y ago

   Hi, Jan here. pdq, the last time I built this design, with more fully elaborated processors (control units + multiplier FUs) it took three hours and 16 GB physical RAM on a Core i7-4960HQ rMBP.