Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Register Log in

Is Assura good enough for 0.13/0.18um CMOS verification?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raymond_luo2003

Member level 1
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
41
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,286
Activity points
464
Dear all,

It seems many mixed-signal design teams select Calibre for 0.18um/0.13um Physical verification. Calibre look like a golden tool.

Unfortunately, my situation is a bit different. Our boss want buy all the mixed-signal EDA tool from Cadence, the question become is the Assura is good enough for the Physical verification? Do those foundry ( TSMC, UMC, Chartered) support the Arrura for their 0.13um/0.18um process?

And how about Hercules from Synopysis, is this tool good enough for Physical verification for 0.13um/0.18um?

Anyone can help me understand this is very much appreciated!!
Thanks in advance!!

Raymond
 

Assura is good but Cadence never was able to match Calibre performance.
Assura (in my opinion) is harder to use and is little bit picky about how the ayout is done.
As far as support - the best thing is to contact the fabs. But they surely do have calibre.

I personaly like "dual" drc solution - in case of small analog cells i run DIVA since it is faster on cell level. And Calibre + Calibre metal fill on top level.

**broken link removed**
htmlhttp://www.eetasia.com/ARTP_8800347310_499481,499494.HTM
 

I think it is ok for 0.13um/0.18um CMOS process. Assura is a fullset for backend verification. Calibre is the golden tool in this area. But usually our company will use two backend tool to verify the whole database. Now we use Assura and Calibre.

Yibin.
 

I like calibre more than assura. The assura have endless bugs and too many fault errors.
 

We have UMC 0.18 um and it supports Assura (DRC, LVS, LPE). It also supports Calibre and Dracula. Can't tell you how it runs, we haven't used it yet.
 

assura and calibre all are good, u can use either
 

Hi,

The reference tool for TSMC 0.18 is ASSURA. The time I use it we didn't have problems ... because our cad people were great!!
The reference tool for CHARTERED 0.13 is CALIBRE but we are using assura because we don't have the rules!!
Calibre is definitly better than Assura in any point.
Calibre is faster. The GUI is a real GUI not something done quickly as ASSURA. The LVS debug is easier with calibre and the extraction is perfect running and exploiting.
But I understand your boss who want a complete cadence flow. It's often the case. Money leads everythings.
 

Heard that latest hercules (Synopsys) tweaking the performances tested is almost same as calibre... how far is it true?
 

I use Assura for 0.13 technology, so far, I don't see anything bad.
 

we have tapped out an UMC 0.13u & TSMC 0.18u using Assura. There were no issues with using assura.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top