| Author |
Message |
EDA_hg81
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 395
|
 13 Jan 2006 1:03 PowerPCB is good enough compared with PADS 2004? |
|
|
|
|
I am going to do PAB signal integrity analysis
Would you give me some suggestions, which tool is good enough to take care this job?
How about PowerPCB?
Thank you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
skywalker
Joined: 27 Nov 2001
Posts: 158
Helped: 3
Location: Earth
|
14 Jan 2006 18:05 Re: PowerPCB is good enough compared with PADS 2004? |
|
|
|
|
Hi EDA_hg81,
Pow*er*P*CB (5.01 not other) are good, 2004 have some new features, but the main difference are on bug fixes in 2004, latest release.
The Binary files generated from each version Pow*er*P*CB (5.01) and 2004 layout are backward and forward compatible, for logic and layout.
For me is a very good choice in starting to manage h-speed signals. Other very good tools for SI manage are Exp*edition, but not simple to learn, and expensive, the same for Allegro. Pow*er*PCB are moore cheaper and simple to learn, but fine.
skywalker.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
AdSense
|
14 Jan 2006 18:05 Ads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EDA_hg81
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 395
|
15 Jan 2006 2:34 Re: PowerPCB is good enough compared with PADS 2004? |
|
|
|
|
thank you.
I plan to use protel DXP 2002 to finish schematic design, and then use PADS2005 to analyze signal integrity.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skywalker
Joined: 27 Nov 2001
Posts: 158
Helped: 3
Location: Earth
|
16 Jan 2006 0:04 Re: PowerPCB is good enough compared with PADS 2004? |
|
|
|
|
The PADS*2005 (s*pac*2 better), are best choice than 2004 or old P*wer*PCB.
If you need to finish schematic. But P*otel schematic have a functional simulation ? After conversion are all data in schematic translate well for use directly in PADS*2005 ? Otherwise you can start in Dx*Designer or Logic.
skywalker.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
