( SNUG 00 Item 9 ) --------------------------------------------- [ 4/05/00 ]

 NO NEWS HERE:  The SNUG'00 user survey stats on the mainstream Synopsys
 synthesis tools yielded no news.  Synopsys still owns RTL synthesis.

     Synopsys Design Compiler  ######################################## 81%
          Synopsys DesignWare  ################## 37%
      Cadence Ambit Synthesis  ### 7%

    Synopsys Library Compiler  ######### 18%
     Synopsys Module Compiler  ######## 17%
      Synopsys Power Compiler  ###### 13%
 Synopsys Behavioral Compiler  ## 5%

 One interesting thing to note here, though, was that roughly 20 percent of
 Synopsys customers used Library Compiler.  Users would only have this if
 they're a foundry or that they're doing full Customer Owned Tooling (COT)
 designs (i.e. they're going from RTL to GDS II in house, so they make
 their own Synopsys .lib files).

 And, yes, Behavioral Compiler is still a cult-following-only tool as it was
 last year and the year before and the year before that.

 One of my own stats I've been tracking on my own has been:

     Known Number of Synopsys
     Design Compiler Licenses
        In Actual Design Use:  ################################ ~ 16,000

      Known Number of Cadence
     Ambit Synthesis Licenses
        In Actual Design Use:  # ~ 360

 Cadence claims 120 sites using Ambit and assuming there are, on average, 3
 licenses per site yields 360 active Ambit licenses.  And while 300 Ambit
 users is confirmed by Missing Elf Analysis (see ESNUG 339 #11), the Cadence
 claim of 1,500 active Ambit users doesn't stand up under such scrutiny.

 Why I track this stat is because I'll occasionally get a phone call from
 a customer or a Wall Street type asking about Cadence Ambit taking over the
 RTL synthesis market from Synopsys because Ambit's cheaper.  I tell them
 that stat and then give them my patented "Gregg Lahti Yugo Speech" -- which
 basically boils down to the true cost of RTL synthesis tool (or any EDA
 tool for that matter) isn't just the software price itself, but:

   1.) MOST IMPORTANTLY: Does the new tool produce significantly better
       (greater than 20 percent timing reduction) results to justify
       the switching risk?  If not, exactly why are you risking your
       project schedule on this new tool?  Who is sleeping with which
       one of our people to get us to use this tool?
   2.) You gotta pay/schedule for ramping-up the learning curve.
   3.) You gotta pay/schedule for bug chasing & debugging time.  This
       is always much higher with new tools.  (See Question 1)
   4.) Is there a pool of experienced users around?  What happens
       when you're in trouble and those really sharp pre-sales tool
       support people who were around when you were about to sign the
       Purchase Order are long gone?  What type of ugly schedule hit
       is this going to be?  (Again, see Question 1)
   5.) How many fully tested/debugged ASIC libraries are there?  Has
       your fab actually fabbed customer designs with this tool or are
       you the one on the bleeding edge?  (See Question 1)
   6.) How many real life chip designs have taped out with this tool?
   7.) What about scan, ATPG, testing issues?  (See Question 1)
   8.) What about static timing issues? (See Question 1)
   9.) Do the people in the selling EDA company really KNOW the tool
       (inside and out) or is it a tool they acquired?  (See Question 1)
  10.) What about other related 3rd party EDA tools -- do they work
       well with the new or old tool better?  (See Question 1)
  11.) See Question 1.

 Switching from Design Compiler to Ambit is like switching from Windows'98
 to IBM OS/2 on my laptop computer -- what do I gain and what do I lose by
 doing this even if IBM *paid* me $100 to use OS/2 ???  Most chip designers
 clearly know the true costs involved and only use the pseudo-threat of
 switching over to Ambit as a bargaining chip w/ Synopsys at renewal time.

   "Price isn't everything, or we'd all be driving Yugos."

        - Gregg Lahti of Intel from ESNUG 333 #2

 Now if Ambit *DID* get greater-than-20-percent-timing improvements over DC,
 THAT would be another set of questions altogether!  Then, the questions
 would be: "When can I get the Cadence sales-sleaze in house?" and "How long
 will it take for us to get an Ambit Purchase Order processed?"

 And for me personally the questions would be: "OK, John, how long would it
 take to convert ESNUG over to AmBUG -- that new widely read Ambit Users
 Group e-mail newsletter?" and "How can I get more chummy with Ray Bingham,
 that absolutely brilliant new CEO of Cadence?"  (Freelance consultants like
 myself owe loyalty to no one but to whoever owns the best technology.)

 The real battle in the EDA world isn't in RTL synthesis; it's in physical
 synthesis.  Because that's where we're going to find those super sexy
 greater-than-20-percent-timing-improvements for our big designs.  So for
 now, ESNUG is still ESNUG.

   "The 1998 ASIC synthesis market breaks out to:

                       Synopsys:  91.1 percent
                          Ambit:   8.7 percent
                         Avanti:   0.1 percent
                          Magma:   0.0 percent

    These are revenue numbers, not licenses."

        - Gary Smith, Dataquest EDA Analyst


   "It's good to see the second generation Ambit synthesizer on the
    market.  The funny thing is that it's Magma who is selling it.  All
    but two of the Ambit developers each took their half million Cadence
    cash buyout and walked off to Magma.  Kind of funny to see this.
    Cadence can't negotiate acquisitions worth shit."

        - an anon observer