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
After a long day, I like to browse around the web, looking for interesting stories. Ok, yes, I’m a geek (as my daughter continues to remind me, accompanied by a roll of her eyes).
But I found this story about the new MacBook too interesting to pass up. I agree with Seth that the most interesting feature is the use of multiple graphics. But for a different reason – this is the ultimate in coarse Power Shut Off.
What I find particularly interesting is that I bet each of these graphics sub-systems also have some pretty advanced power management capabilities. But by themselves, it wasn’t enough for Apple. For Apple, the additional cost of a graphics system was worth the extra 25% of battery life. And, of course, cost here is not just the chip price. There’s also the additional real estate, the software development and qualification costs, and the potential reliability impact of having additional components.
So I’m wondering if this can explain why I’m not seeing that many DVFS (Dynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling) or AVS (Adaptive Voltage Scaling) designs being done. A quick refresher – AVS is changing the voltage based on the application requirements. Higher horsepower requirements will cause the voltage to be increased. DVFS is taking that one step further, and changing the voltage and frequency based on sub-application needs. The I-frame decoding takes more oomph than the P-frame, so amp up the voltage and frequency during I-frame.
But voltage scaling takes some sophisticated software and hardware control. Maybe it is cheaper to just put extra stuff on the chip (or in the case of Apple, on the motherboard) and switch between them based on the user requirements? I’ve also heard of this approach being used by some networking companies – they’ll just turn off some of the switch circuits if they’re not needed.
What do you think? Are multiple potentially redundant power shut off blocks the way to go? Are we going to see more layered PSO like the Apple approach? And what does this mean for power design and estimation?