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
Last week, Professor Jan Rabaey of the University of California at Berkeley gave a great keynote at Cadence's Low Power Technology Summit that called for changes to the conventional solutions for power reduction.
One of the points he made was that today's designs are over-designed and over-constrained with additional margin. One of the reasons is variability -- which results in the creation of timing margins to ensure that process variability or environmental conditions do not cause the chip to malfunction.
In the design process, margins are constantly added to ensure that timing goals will be met in physical implementation without schedule-killing iterations. After all, schedules are very aggressive and also high-visibility to management. So in RTL synthesis, you add margin to protect yourself from the additional delays due to wires since you don't yet know what those will be. As wire delay becomes a more and more significant component of the delays in critical paths, this margin grows. Of course the cost of this is generally larger area and power consumption. This is why we have physical synthesis -- to bring these back under control.
The same dynamic exists in high-level synthesis. HLS moves everything up another level of abstraction, where it is creating the micro-architectures that will have a much larger effect on area and power than will the gate sizes and local structures that RTL synthesis creates. However being further removed from the physical details also increases uncertainties around quality of results (QoR) measurements. Uncertainty leads to adding more margin. Since timing is usually a "hard" constraint, it is timing margin that is added, at the expense of area and power.
The solution to reducing this uncertainty is similar to how RTL synthesis reduced the timing uncertainty -- just embed the downstream engines. In other words, RTL synthesis has embedded placement and varying levels of detail of routing in order to better measure timing, enabling designers to reduce their margins, which in turn lets synthesis optimize for area and power.
In the case of HLS, this means embedding RTL Compiler logic synthesis into C-to-Silicon Compiler HLS. As with physical synthesis, the characterization that the embedded downstream engine performs has to be design-dependent: in the case of RTL synthesis, you need wire delay that is design-dependent; in the case of HLS, you need resource-level timing information that is sensitive to the context of the surrounding design. The only way to do this is to embed production synthesis, since resource characterization will need to be aware of how the logic will be constructed downstream.
This shows why it is vital to embed downstream production engines. Yes, such embedding delivers more predictable closure, which is important from a schedule management point of view. However using more accurate timing information enables optimization to live at the edge with respect to the timing constraints and hence perform more aggressive area and power optimization. It is widely stated in the industry that approximately 80% of digital power consumption is determined at the RTL stage or earlier -- this is where HLS lives, so it is critical that your HLS tool does not over-margin timing because it does not know what will happen downstream. Utilizing a tool like C-to-Silicon Compiler with embedded production synthesis will not only deliver more predictable timing closure, but will also trim those timing margins and save you area and power.