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.
Simulation acceleration and emulation technology has been commonly used to run faster large blocks and system level configurations and to verify software against very fast and accurate RTL hardware model. With current system design capacities in the multi millions gates, simulating these designs at 100 -100,000 times the speed of a simulator provides already a huge benefit to system verification teams across the globe.
But is “running faster” the only metrics by which you measure acceleration/emulation benefit?
I think that acceleration speed will continue to be an important factor, but not the only factor moving forward. The true metric is how fast you can reach the “completion point” of your verification, in other words knowing that all bugs are have been “flushed out” before product is out the door. To accomplish this goal, you need to accelerate not only your simulation run, but your entire system level verification process.
While some of the most prevailing verification metrics considered in addition to acceleration speed have been fast compile and efficient debug, some new metrics need to be looked at: Are your runs on the accelerator and emulator getting you to the desired “completion point”? Do you apply the right tests to your accelerator and emulator resource to verify system level scenarios in the most effective way? Do you run your accelerator in the most effective way?
Verification acceleration towards your “completion point” entails good planning of your verification modeling strategy, effective management of your simulation and acceleration/emulation resources and use models, and a good verification coverage metrics telling you that your desired completion point has been reached. These make the main difference in my mind between “simulation acceleration” and well planned “verification acceleration” with the “completion point” end-goal in mind.
I never understood why users placed such a high importance on the raw speed in benchmarks between emulators. I saw things like "emulator1 runs my design at 700 kHz and emulator2 runs my design at 900 kHz so it makes sense to pick emulator 2".
Look at my blog entry called "Verification Hierarchy of Needs". It's easy to measure RUN. Historically most EDA spending in verification goes towards RUN. The DEBUG part requires a combination of tools and human thinking so it's hard to measure things like productivity and how long it takes to find and fix a bug.
VERIFY is even harder to measure because it requires a human to think about more than 1 bug, but to think about all the bugs that might be in the design.
To achieve true "verification acceleration" it seems we need a way to measure the productivity of tools and methodology that are combined with human thinking.