Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronic 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.
I would rather be skeptical since I didn’t try it. I asked their sales people about the tool and some comparisons with @mplify, but they were unable to answer. So, as I did in the past, if someone worked with Precision Synthesis, please be so kind to give us some brief information.
1. Precision Physical is vastly different to Amplify
a. With no verifiable success concerning Amplify’s automated flow, the
main feature available is the floorplanning capability. This requires time,
effort and skill but does not ensure any improvement in design
performance. Precision Physical has a push button automated flow with
embedded timing analysis to give instantly verifiable performance
2. Non-convergent/Non-incremental design flow
a. The RTL Floorplan created in Amplify is based on the timing information
after place and route. However, the placement is discarded which
therefore invalidates this timing information, potentially resulting in nonconvergence.
b. No embedded timing analysis. The user must go through place and route
to verify timing.
c. Although Amplify can read in placement and delay information in the
automated TOPS flow, the majority of users only find benefit with the
interactive flow. Here the placement is not read in which therefore
prevents an incremental design flow.
Please excuse me, but all you have wrote is pure theory. After my opinion without P&R we cannot discuss about timing analysis. The synthesis tools reports are far away from reality. If you have worked with Mentor tool please be so kind to provide us some concrete data about its performance.