To agree and expand on Arpad's comment, another issue I believe in is the idea of "accuracy matching". Unless you really enjoy sitting around and waiting for your simulations to finish, it is a reasonable idea to want to simulate as fast as you can for the best accuracy. I mean, if you can do two simulations and one takes 1 minute and one takes 1 hour and they give the same answer, which do you want? And accuracy is not determined by just the driver model. In many cases it is determined much more by the level of accuracy of all of the input data. How well do you really know your Er (10%?) or even your actual trace width and spacing (another 10%?). How much tolerance do you have in general across a fab run on your boards? What about changes due to temperature? You add all these things up and you see that there is an accuracy limit imposed by your lack of exact knowledge of what you are simulating. This is especially bad in situations where the return path is not obvious or perhaps widely distributed. So running a simulation that is "more accurate" (or has more precision) than your input data won't give a better answer, it will just take longer. jon -----Original Message----- From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 1:02 AM To: Chris Cheng; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: [SI-LIST]: Which tool is the best - LINPARdisc ussion Chris, I do not want to react to every single thought in your message, but I feel (for the sake of the rest of the readers) that I should mention that the situation is not as bad as you paint it. It is true that in the past IBIS lagged behind the bleeding edge technology because it took so long to come up with new keywords for the new behaviors in the latest buffer types (such as GTL). However, now that we have these new language extensions, the IBIS specification will not have to be "tailored" to every new buffer behavior that designers com up with. It will be only up to the model maker how long it will take to see a behavioral model for a new buffer design. Second, I can understand many of your reasons that you makes you want to stick with transistor level models. However, don't forget that these behavioral models can run much faster than full transistor level models, I measured close to 300x speed improvements on one of the PCI-express designs. If you want to run thousands of signal integrity simulations with a model that takes 30 minutes (or more) for each run you will never get your work done... Arpad =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cheng [mailto:Chris.Cheng@xxxxxxxxxxxx]=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:53 AM To: Muranyi, Arpad; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] Re: [SI-LIST]: Which tool is the best - LINPARdisc ussion Sure, anything is possible. And the dog ate my homework. Just kidding. Little bird always reminds me that those are very smart people and he is always grateful for the work they have done. And I am told at least one of them got it reasonably fast on first try. =20 I never got paid to create industry standards or sell CAD tools.My current or former employers just pay me to make sure their own or customers systems work. Very smart circuit designers gave me very smart I/O. I am just lucky to even have a circuit description of it. To ask me to generate an accurate behavioral abstraction of it everytime something new comes out is beyond my limited intelligence. Case and point is the original GTL driver by Bill Gunning with the delay feedback for my first GTL system, I can't even remember how long did it take (or if ever) for IBIS to be able to generate an accurate model of it. And if at the end of the day those so call tools "will get better in the future" or "be able to do what you want in the next rev" or "add x tool to y tool and you may be able to do that", that's just too complicated for me. Remember, I am just a dumb engineer who wants one tool to do it all. Seems like I've been lucky so far with what I've got and I'll probably stick with it for awhile. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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