Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1
  • Subscribers 61
  • Views 12958
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

rc-physical

archive

have anyone seen any area savings using rc-physical approach , compared to 0 wlm approach. we generally use 0 wlm in synthesis to get best area. I know its far easier to close timing with rc-phys approach, but my interest is in final area.--thanks


Originally posted in cdnusers.org by pjayasekharan
Parents

  • Hi pjayasekharan,

    In my humble opinion ZWL as a means to minimal FINAL area is fundamentally flawed. The problem is it fails to account for one of the biggest problems in <100nm technologies and that is the wires. We have used ZWL as a good means to get a bound on lowest possible area and perform trade-off analysis but using ZWL for our netlist can lead to unexpected area blowups due to the issues that come up when the effect of the wires is added. The netlist as a result of ZWL synthesis could have all the wrong architectures selected. As I understand it, RC Physical will help you better address the physical issues that ZWL and WL synthesis in general fail to identify and as a result you should end up with better prediction and better final QoR. To me it only make sense that a tool that better identifies all issues will produce better FINAL results. I am curious to hear you experience if you decide to try and can share

    gh-


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by grasshopper
Reply

  • Hi pjayasekharan,

    In my humble opinion ZWL as a means to minimal FINAL area is fundamentally flawed. The problem is it fails to account for one of the biggest problems in <100nm technologies and that is the wires. We have used ZWL as a good means to get a bound on lowest possible area and perform trade-off analysis but using ZWL for our netlist can lead to unexpected area blowups due to the issues that come up when the effect of the wires is added. The netlist as a result of ZWL synthesis could have all the wrong architectures selected. As I understand it, RC Physical will help you better address the physical issues that ZWL and WL synthesis in general fail to identify and as a result you should end up with better prediction and better final QoR. To me it only make sense that a tool that better identifies all issues will produce better FINAL results. I am curious to hear you experience if you decide to try and can share

    gh-


    Originally posted in cdnusers.org by grasshopper
Children
No Data

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. 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. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.