What are the main differences between Dvia and Assur?

Hi, all:

What are the main differences between Dvia and Assura in terms of DRC, EXC,LVS, ERC and PRC ?

Which one (Diva or Assura) is better in terms of design cost, design effecicency, time to market, and design optimization ?


Sunny656

diva vs assura

these are tools that do the lvs lpe ... job and they do not affect the cost of circuit

assura vs diva

DIVA interactive DRC, LVS, ERC ...
Assura : Batch mode DRC, LVS, ERC

DIVA for small block verification
Assura for big block or whole chip verification

Assura is more expensive, of course

assura erc

HCM_bucat said:

DIVA interactive DRC, LVS, ERC ...
Assura : Batch mode DRC, LVS, ERC

DIVA for small block verification
Assura for big block or whole chip verification

Assura is more expensive, of course

Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly.
But I want to know which one better for Assura & Calibre, even Hercules.
thanks.

diva assura

diva widely use in analog design .assura for more complex circuit like digital

diva erc

DIVA is used for small size designs. It obviously covers DRC/LVS/EXTRACT/Paratsitcs - it is good for small analog designs. For sure its limitation is capacity. You can surely use it for small digital but then you will not be able (unless you use the very old PERL) extract and backannotate to verilog netlist.

Assura - it is CADENCE's response to Mentor's Calibre. In general it is not a great tool. It introduces hierarchical checks so it is faster on digital!! designs. For small circuits and cells it is very slow compared to DIVA because it uses gds2 as input. Layout has to be done in a special way for it (one has to remember that Assura is going to be used - usually not a big deal but annoying). Foundries do provide Assura decks but I have noticed they are slowly starting to abandon it. It is not as good and powerful as Calibre.

Calibre - really fast on hierarchical designs(digital mostly). Provides all the luxury of backannotation to Verilog etc. ANd is way easier to use than Assura. It is a market leader. Every foundry will provide decks for it.
As well as Assura slow on small designs (like cells) since it uses gds2 as input.

Hercules - obsolete brother of DIVA. I think was supposed to be replaced by assura. It has more capacity than DIVA. Did not see it for a while.

Each of those tools could give you a bit different answers when DRC because of different approach to checking. I personaly like to combine DIVA(cells) and Calibre(top level + tapeout).

assura to diva

My opinion is, sometimes DIVA is not accurate. I used Dracula instead
of DIVA. I tried both of them and sometimes Dracula gave me some
errors when DIVA pass my design. DIVA is easy to use cuz it's online
check, click this, click that, and you are done. Dracula checks your
design offline. Not as easy to learn as DIVA, not as easy to use as
DIVA, but performs way better.

Nowaday, best way for analog circuit verification is Dracula plus Calibre,
I suppose.

diva lvs in batch mode

Diva use for block-level analog circuit or custom digital design.
Assura can be uses for chip level analog,digital and large mixed-signal design.
Assura RCX is the accurate parasitic extracted tools of deep-submicro process, even can extracts L and K(parasitic inductor).
And Assura is more expensive than diva.

diva to assura

we use diva to check.I does'nt use assura.

assura diva

DIVA for fast, interactive checking of small blocks, Assura for a batch mode of big or full chip simulation

diva verification

i always use dracula,i don't like diva,its fast but it isb't accurate.now i also use zenivari,its also quickly.