[Coco] FPGA VS Software Emulators

[Walter Zambotti]

Mark

>So the input clock bears little hint as to the rate things are happening inside your device. eg the >above-mentioned examples with a 50MHz clock are actually running quite slowly (~25MHz) inside. >Contrast that with a design I've worked on with a 24MHz input clock; running logic at 150MHz and >DRAM at 4-500MHz...

And the reason we can't use that same kind of trick for the CoCo FPGA projects is....?

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: Coco [mailto:coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com] On Behalf Of Mark McDougall
Sent: Wednesday, 26 July 2017 8:46 AM
To: coco at maltedmedia.com
Subject: Re: [Coco] FPGA VS Software Emulators

On 26/07/2017 10:30 AM, Mark McDougall wrote:

>> Cyclone® IV EP4CE22F17C6N FPGA
>> runs at 50 MHz.
>> Altera Cyclone II 2C20 FPGA
>> runs at 50 MHz.

For those interested, the input clock to an FPGA is usually chosen with regards to the desired clock frequencies inside the design. By using multipliers and dividers FPGA PPLs have limits on the resolution of generated frequencies, so if you have a particularly critical frequency you need then you'd better make sure your input clock is a "nice" 
frequency. There are even further constraints when generating multiple frequencies from the one PLL (input clock), which is often the case, and more-so again in smaller devices.

Often parts of your design that don't have a specific frequency requirement will run at a "convenient" frequency based on what the PLL can output.

So the input clock bears little hint as to the rate things are happening inside your device. eg the above-mentioned examples with a 50MHz clock are actually running quite slowly (~25MHz) inside. Contrast that with a design I've worked on with a 24MHz input clock; running logic at 150MHz and DRAM at 4-500MHz...

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall
<http://retroports.blogspot.com.au>

--
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco