[SI-LIST] Re: Hyperlynx vs Signal Explorer
- From: "Kai Keskinen" <kalevi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hreidmarkailen@xxxxxxxxx>, "si-list" <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:00:02 -0500
Agathon:
I have used the Cadence SI tools for many years at various companies. True,
the first version, somewhere around 13.6, was pretty poor. We are using 15.7
in an SI service bureau for many customers whose designs end up working on
the first pass, at least without SI or timing issues. Almost all of my
customers end up being repeat customers (i.e. customer A, 13 boards this
year, customer B 9, customer C 8, etc). So, we can turn around their boards
for SI quickly and cost effectively using the Cadence tools and our
internally developed scripts and the boards work without issues after our
recommendations are implemented. The tools do meet our needs and Cadence
responds to our feedback. Yes, there are some issues with the tools but who
can name a perfect EDA tool? Cadence is quick to address real issues and
bugs are either patched or workarounds are provided.
The previous post by Weston also had a lot of good points.
Your posts about this topic don't help anyone unless you are being paid to
disparage a perfectly good tool.
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of agathon
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:52 PM
To: si-list
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Hyperlynx vs Signal Explorer
Carlos,
Sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs recline, or at least hope for
it. But you didn't. If the short answer is accurate, then Cadence has
discredited itself and impeded customer progress. Pardon my curiosity, but
does Cadence monitor this list for technical, or other, reasons? "Working
for years..." -- yes, exactly. At what? If the comments are true, then you
seek "nicety"? Uh oh.
Further notes from the anonymous:
----------------------------
"My experience, too, has been that the si tools were designed without actual
& basic user needs driving it. That's not opinion or interpretation. It
'functions' until you have some complexity and flexibility in mind. It also
crashes alot. On the same machine other large apps do not. The training
avoids the situations exposing the weak points, without 100% success, the
docs are bloated and are absent on some basics that are real capability
deficits (conveniently) and tech support has validated my use-model
concerns."
----------------------------
The dog wishes a nap.
On 1/10/07, Carlos Moll <cmoll@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Geez, not a nice way to discredit a solution in a public forum which has
> been in use and working for many years by the electronics design
community.
> Perhaps some product training, ae help or support can be leveraged to
> assist with your problems or conerns.
> Carlos Moll
> Cadence Design Systems
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: agathon [mailto:hreidmarkailen@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
> To: si-list
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Hyperlynx vs Signal Explorer
>
> I recently received a comment about just this from an acquaintance:
> ----
> "Short answer: anyone trying to make full use of Cadence pcb si tools for
> interconnect sim and who, nevertheless, recommends it could make good use
> of
> counseling of some kind... or the receivers of that info could make good
> use
> of a polygraph test on the one recommending. All this based on 1st hand
> experience over time."
>
> ----
> No info on Hyperlynx.
>
>
>
> On 1/9/07, cdomeny <craig.domeny@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We are considering adding a base-model (<GHz) SI tool to our PCB design
> > flow and have looked at Mentor Hyperlynx EXT and Cadence Orcad Sig
> > Explorer. In research, it seems the Cadence tool does not actually
> > perform "physical extraction", but is able to do a post-layout analysis
> > somehow. Can anyone help?
> >
> > Hyperlynx "seems" more mature, but cost ~2X. However, we are concerned
> > also about post-layout, and if Hyperlynx actually extracts the layout,
> > it seems like a more robust method.
> >
> > Any help, insight, or guidance is appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks, - Craig
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List FAQ wiki page is located at:
http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
List technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.org
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List FAQ wiki page is located at:
http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
List technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.org
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Other related posts:
