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
There's a new post worth reading for anyone
interested in the current state of high-level synthesis (HLS).
http://www.deepchip.com/items/0479-04.html, apparently posted by Mentor.
The article highlighted the results
of a worldwide survey that asked 1500+
engineers their reasons for considering/using HLS. 800+ engineers responded,
overwhelmingly citing "faster time to RTL" and "faster verification" as the top
two reasons. This is
excellent news for everyone with a stake in the HLS technology market. These
results clearly support the notion that HLS is a rapidly emerging market with a
promising future. The article claims that use of ANSI-C/C++ (vs.
SystemC) makes Catapult-C inherently superior to other SystemC HLS
In my view, this went too far, to
the point of being misleading...If you were to ask EDA industry
folks/customers who have known me a long time, whether SteveS tells the truth,
you'd probably get a smile and the comment "maybe a little too often". I have a
reputation for being pretty frank (whether I'm wrong or right) and more than
once have gotten in "hot water" because of that. So, for whatever it's worth,
let me tell you what I really think.
While for a limited subset of (i.e.
datapath-logic intensive) designs the
arguments have some merit, as design-complexity increases and/or
control-logic is added, the potential advantages of C/C++ become significantly
outweighed by SystemC's natural support for hierarchy, concurrency, resets,
timing, etc. These latter characteristics are essential when trying to specify
any functionality that is targeting hardware. In fact, across numerous customer benchmarks, without mentioning numbers, CtoS fared EXTREMELY well, and you can deduce what
'extremely well' means. For highly datapath-intensive
designs (e.g. FIR filters, FFTs) CtoS area/timing results were right on-par with
Catapult-C. While for control-intensive, or mixed control-datapath designs,
CtoS results were always superior.
The problem is, in marketing Catapult-C, there seems to be running a
Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt "FUD" campaign against SystemC, and it's customers/users
who will suffer most from that. For example, claiming SystemC
requires designing at a lower abstraction than C++ is misleading. The article
neglects to mention that SystemC is a *superset*
(rather than a subset) of C++. For datapath code, CtoS (and probably other
SystemC HLS tools as well) uses the exact same untimed, high-abstraction C/C++
as Catapult-C. Moreover, CtoS (and probably other
SystemC HLS tools) allow designers to add the necessary SystemC constructs in
order to specify the hierarchy, concurrency, timing information, resets, etc.
which are essential for any complex, multi-state, designs. Contrary to the article's assertions about SystemC HLS
tools, CtoS does not require (or even recommend) low-abstraction code or
hard-coded timing unless dictated by the protocol. CtoS prefers that
designers enter information at the highest level of abstraction possible,
because that allows CtoS maximum flexibility to move logic around for better
resource sharing, area-power-timing optimization, and IP
Every customer considering an
investment in HLS to realize productivity and IP reuse gains ought to care a lot
about this. Given the current economic climate, customers are under intense
pressure to increase designer productivity, automate IP reuse, and
HLS is receiving a lot of interest. Adopting HLS requires not only a major
investment in HLS tools, but also in teaching engineers new design skills and
methodologies. Prospective HLS customers have a lot
to consider in deciding what HLS solution to adopt.
I honestly believe CtoS is the best
HLS technology on the market today, but I want customers/users to
judge for themselves. My hope is by pointing out FUD such as this, I can help
customers make informed decisions and select the best HLS technology for *their*
needs. If once in a while customers decide to pick an HLS tool other than CtoS,
that's OK. Variety, choices are good for customers...but I'm confident that
enough will! ;-)