( ESNUG 453 Item 5 ) --------------------------------------------- [03/01/06]
Subject: Ponte, Prediction, SDS, Pyxis, Pulsic
Q: As a competitor, what do you think about these specific DFM companies?
In plain English, what exactly do they do? And how do you view them?
Ponte
Mike -- Ponte does yield predictions based on random particle defects. I
think they might be able to modify your design to improve its yield based
on this analysis. (Not sure about that; it might only be prediction.)
Random defect analysis is too small a piece to the DFM problem; Ponte
needs to merge with some of the other players for a chance to survive.
Atul -- Ponte is the only non-P&R co that does critrical area analysis;
which is basically yield modeling. You could use this to compare a
Synopsys vs. Cadence vs. Magma P&R flow in terms of yield. I think they
have good technology, but the question is do they take this to the next
step in moving geometries around? They're very complementary to our
Clear Shape approach. They're on my long term survivor list because
they're the only viable random yield analysis company.
Prediction
Mike -- They also do random particle analysis like Ponte, but they do it
quicker (and they would say more accurately -- which I can't say is true
or not.) Like Ponte, Prediction is only an acquisition candidate that
can't survive on its own. They only solve one small piece of the puzzle.
Atul -- They're simular to Ponte, but much smaller. Prediction is a 2 or
3 man company, while Ponte has 15 people in the US and 30 in Armenia.
SDS
Mike -- Silicon Design Systems, from my understanding, is trying to build
a lithography-aware router. I'm not sure if they do placement. I only
remember K-Route. It's a good idea. The concern I have is that they're
up against the Big 4. Are they good enough? Are they unique enough? I
am just not sure they can withstand the Big 4 onslaught. I tend to favor
Pyxis and Pulsic over SDS.
Atul -- I agree with what Mike said. Plus they're working on something
that nobody (Cadence, Synopsys, Magma) has today; a lithography-aware
engine that says "here's where the problems are" and "here's what to do
about them". It's not a nearest neighbor problem where you can do a
simple rule check; you have to look at a much larger radius. P&R tools
need a litho engine and ability to abstract higher to make it fast enough
for use on the design side - without losing accuracy. So far, no one
(including SDS) has this right now.
Pyxis
Mike -- Pyxis is developing a router with DFM cost functions built-in.
I'd say their approach appears technically sound. Their gotcha is their
fight will be with the big guys like Cadence, Synopsys and Magma. Pyxis
is on my watch list because they have a different approach in a place
where a new strategy might be exactly what is needed.
Atul -- I tend to favor SDS over Pyxis because SDS has been developing
their tool longer. They're not on my watch list.
Pulsic
Mike -- They also have an innovative shape-based router that claims to now
be DFM aware. It does wire spreading, track smoothing, via reduction, etc.
Pyxis does much of the same. Pulsic has been around much longer than Pyxis
and therefore their Lyric has more market traction. I tend to lean towards
Pyxis over Pulsic simply because I know a bit more of what Pyxis is up to.
Atul -- I don't associate Pulsic with DFM. Any routing tool (even from
Synopsys, Cadence, Magma) will be able to address issues linked to random
yield defects (like wire spreading, etc.) so that won't be enough to
differentiate Pulsic nor Pyxis nor SDS in the DFM market.
Index
Next->Item
|
|
