Cadence® system design and verification solutions, integrated under our System Development Suite, provide the simulation, acceleration, emulation, and management capabilities.
System Development Suite Related Products A-Z
Cadence® digital design and signoff solutions provide a fast path to design closure and better predictability, helping you meet your power, performance, and area (PPA) targets.
Full-Flow Digital Solution Related Products A-Z
Cadence® custom, analog, and RF design solutions can help you save time by automating many routine tasks, from block-level and mixed-signal simulation to routing and library characterization.
Overview Related Products A-Z
Driving efficiency and accuracy in advanced packaging, system planning, and multi-fabric interoperability, Cadence® package implementation products deliver the automation and accuracy.
Cadence® PCB design solutions enable shorter, more predictable design cycles with greater integration of component design and system-level simulation for a constraint-driven flow.
An open IP platform for you to customize your app-driven SoC design.
Comprehensive solutions and methodologies.
Helping you meet your broader business goals.
A global customer support infrastructure with around-the-clock help.
24/7 Support - Cadence Online Support
Locate the latest software updates, service request, technical documentation, solutions and more in your personalized environment.
Cadence offers various software services for download. This page describes our offerings, including the Allegro FREE Physical Viewer.
Get the most out of your investment in Cadence technologies through a wide range of training offerings.
This course combines our Allegro PCB Editor Basic Techniques, followed by Allegro PCB Editor Intermediate Techniques.
Virtuoso Analog Design Environment Verifier 16.7
Learn learn to perform requirements-driven analog verification using the Virtuoso ADE Verifier tool.
Exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices.
The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information.
It's not all about the technlogy. Here we exchange ideas on the Cadence Academic Network and other subjects of general interest.
Cadence is a leading provider of system design tools, software, IP, and services.
Get email delivery of the Cadence blog featured here
Design environments have come quite a long way from the time I began my engineering career. It is amazing to see how far we have come from stitching together designs as netlists to run rudimentary simulations, to today’s integrated tools with validation required across a plethora of conditions. In those days, I also remember you only needed one engineer per chip.
With today's levels of design complexity, additional tool capabilities are required and yet there are almost as many opinions on the right strategy as there are custom design engineers..... Maybe more!!. However, solutions are starting to coalesce to meet these challenges with one of the biggest challenges coming from capturing the designer intent as additional IP to leverage subsequent reuse/retargeting.
I’m curious about what you think. How have you seen circuit design and analysis change over the past 5-10-20 years and what do think are the next challenges?
I remember SPICE runs that would take over-night and we could do one or two per day. Now with Fast SPICE simulators we have capacity in the 10Million+ transistor range, and runs takes hours to minutes. Of course, we now have to run more corners or even Monte-Carlo to see how our circuits will work across process variations. We can also now simulate HDL along with SPICE level in one simulation environment, instead of throwing waveforms over the wall. The new restricted design rules are deja vu, when I did my first DRAM design for Intel in 1978 they were talking about restricted design rules to improve yields, they wanted to aling all gates in the same orientation. Also at Intel with the first two-level metal process (circa 1982) they wanted all M1 to go vertical and all M2 to go only horizontal, both to improve yield.