1 / 3

The Benefits of an EDA Roadmap: Insights from the U.S. Design TWG Experience

This presentation by Andrew B. Kahng from UC San Diego explores the historical and future benefits of an Electronic Design Automation (EDA) roadmap. It highlights past limitations, such as the lack of roadmapping culture and awareness of design markets, that hindered the U.S.-dominated EDA industry. The discussion contrasts various roadmaps from Europe and Japan, emphasizes the importance of tying EDA practices to ITRS technology nodes, and stresses the need for shared investments in design technology to improve productivity.

brady-boyer
Télécharger la présentation

The Benefits of an EDA Roadmap: Insights from the U.S. Design TWG Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Benefits of an EDA Roadmap: U.S. Design TWG ExperienceAndrew B. KahngUC San Diego CSE & ECE Depts.abk@ucsd.eduhttp://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/

  2. Past Benefits - Unclear • Benefits limited by (U.S.-dominated) EDA industry culture • No culture of roadmapping, no long-term view  not responsive to ITRS • No resources given to roadmapping  no committed involvement • Weak awareness of design and application markets  no good data • Contrast EDAC “EDA-200X” roadmap (~1997) with MEDEA, STRJ-WG1 • Difficult for EDA to embrace ITRS Design roadmap • SIA/SEMATECH legacy, U.S. (English) text responsibility, digital MPU emphasis, …  miss regional (customer) interests • Europe  Analog / mixed-signal, embedded SW • Japan  Cost-driven consumer SOC, ASIC, design productivity • NEMI, FSA roadmaps  better view of application and cost contexts • MEDEA, STRJ-WG1 roadmaps  better view of design technology • On the other hand… ITRS Design seems “basically correct” • Strong guide for academic research priorities, advanced technology R&D

  3. Future Benefits – Must Be Realized • Good news: EDA now ties itself to ITRS technology nodes, “retooling cycles” • Greater roadmap awareness • Roadmap spending more bullets on design methodology, design system architecture, interoperability, etc. • Must increasingly tie to product and market types • Different drivers (performance, cost, …)  different design technologies • Must stay on message: Value of Design Technology • Cost of design >> Cost of manufacturing • Design productivity gap = Design technology gap • Shared Red Bricks: EDA must receive more of the semiconductor supply chain R&D budget

More Related