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.
I've the following doubt in selecting clock inverters or clock buffers:
Q) on what basis we choose this much of high drive cells can be used to build clock tree?
is this design dependent like gate count of design and frequency of operation?
Generally I always prefer to use X8 and X12.Why can'n we use low drive like X4 etc..Is there any problem if i choose low drive cells?
Can any body give some clear explanation for the above question?
Large buffers near the CTS root to keep the intermediate input pins transition sharp on these long routes. Smaller buffers are more apropriate for shorter but high fannout leaf driver cells. "SinkMaxTran" & "BufMaxTran" are droping with each tech node 32nm < 100ps
Give CTS the full variety of buffers and inverters and see what it wants to naturally use.
In reply to fitz:
Thank u ftz for ur reply...
in cts to reduce latency we are adding buffers(parallel) i.e we have to add high drive strength buffers near clock root and we have to come in descending order of buffer drive strength from clock root to clock sink i.e x12 near root x4 near sink...this is because to reduce DELAY VARIATION between the buffers.....and to maintain cap value......
correct me if i m wrong
In reply to sathyarao:
yes you are correct to reduce latency we go for high drive cells like X12 to drive large fanout loads ....
But can we follow this concept(using of high drive cells) for every design even the design is working with low frequency??
obviously we have to use high drive cells for high frequency designs to get sharp transitions at clock pins ....
My question is on what parameter we chose this much drive cell is enough to drive clock tree??
I think u got my point...
In reply to Ganga111AtFPS:
Our vendor has strict technology node dependant SinkMaxTran & BufMaxTran rules.The early / late clock derating factors used to calculate On Chip Variation are characterized within these input transition boundaries.Break the clock input transition rules and your STA timing margins may not be valid. ( not a warm fuzzy feeling at tapeout )
We always add a good bit of clock uncertainty in our constraints to add extra margin on top of OCV derating. That way if we are just barely meeting timing, we know we still have a good bit of margin built in.
In reply to Scrivner:
At every stage while building delay tables ,cap_tables and giving uncertianity for a design the vendors and designers like us taking margins..
so that even we met barely in STA not a problem for tape_out..