Prev: Modelsim PE vs. Aldec Active-HDL (PE)
Next: Xilinx IOBUF - operation Q (virtex4 chip)
From: John Adair on 6 Mar 2010 10:37
I7 laptops if you can get the mobile versions are best but do watch
the battery lifetime. Most software isn't using the multiple cores so
the next best Core2 duo (T9800) based can be good too. Have a look at
a HP 8730w for one based on T9800. This can go 3-4hrs and double that
with an extension battery they have that clips on. That's series
computing on battery for most of a normal man's working day. There are
quad core ones too but I don't think the extra money is worth
spending. Better to spend money on a good SSD drive which are great
for making things go faster too if you can get the right one.

HP are going to release a 8740w at some point in time. Hopefully soon
and that is I7 based from what little is in the public domain.

HP are still offering XP downgrades last time I looked if you want to
use Windows as OS. That is one the reasons I use them. Dell do the
same.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.

On 3 Mar, 14:48, "Pete Fraser" <pfra...(a)covad.net> wrote:
> I'm going to be travelling soon, and will continue to
> do FPGA design from the road. I'll need to get a
> new laptop for this.
>
> Any thoughts?
> I think something based on the Core i7-620M might
> be fast enough and low power, but they seem rare.
> Looks like I'll probably end up with something with
> a Core i7-720QM or a Core i7-820QM.
> Anybody here have any experience with on of these
> machines? Is there another processor I should be looking at?
>
> The obvious OS with a new machine would be Windows 7,
> 64-bit, but I'm not sure my software will run on that.
> I'm running ISE Foundation 10.1 (and don't plan on
> upgrading quite yet). I also use Modelsim XE, but will
> be upgrading to Modelsim PE or Aldec.
>
> It's not clear what software runs on what OS. It seems
> that I might be safer with 32-bit XP for the Modelsim
> and the Xilinx software. Windows 7 Professional
> seems to have a downgrade option to XP. Does that
> mean I choose to install one or the other OS, or can
> I install both and switch between them? 7 Pro seems
> to have some sort of XP mode. Will that work for these
> tools? Is there a performance penalty over a real XP
> installation? Can I emulate XP 32-bit under W7 64-bit?
>
> Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions.
>
> Pete

From: Michael S on 6 Mar 2010 16:17
On Mar 6, 11:52 am, "HT-Lab" <han...(a)ht-lab.com> wrote:
> "Adam G rski" <totutousungors...(a)malpawp.pl> wrote in message
>
> Just as a warning a number of Flexlm based software is blocking remote desktop
> so you won't be able to run a node-locked license using remote desktop. VNC and
> others work fine,
>

Good old telnet is my preferred solution to this particular annoyance.
But I only work over LAN. If I'd ever want to work over Internet I'd
probably tunnel the telnet over SSH.
From: Michael S on 6 Mar 2010 16:45
On Mar 6, 5:37 pm, John Adair <g...(a)enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
> I7 laptops if you can get the mobile versions are best but do watch
> the battery lifetime. Most software isn't using the multiple cores so
> the next best Core2 duo (T9800) based can be good too.

Why not T9900?
At single FPGA compilation it should easily beat any 35W member of
core-i7 family, including i7-620M. FPGA tools love on-chip cache above
anything else. In fact, it's possible that even T9600 is faster than
i7-620M.
i7-820QM would be faster, yet, but at 45W TDP you will likely find it
only in special heavyweight models.

Of course, if you often find yourself compiling several variants in
parallel, stick with i7/i5, since in that scenario core2duo is pretty
weak.

>Have a look at
> a HP 8730w for one based on T9800. This can go 3-4hrs and double that
> with an extension battery they have that clips on. That's series
> computing on battery for most of a normal man's working day. There are
> quad core ones too but I don't think the extra money is worth
> spending. Better to spend money on a good SSD drive which are great
> for making things go faster too if you can get the right one.
>
> HP are going to release a 8740w at some point in time. Hopefully soon
> and that is I7 based from what little is in the public domain.
>
> HP are still offering XP downgrades last time I looked if you want to
> use Windows as OS. That is one the reasons I use them. Dell do the
> same.

Do they offer XP64 drivers?
XP32 is sufficient in for 98% of todays FPGA but the upper 2% (the
biggest Stratix-IV devices, for example) require 64-bit tools.

>
> John Adair
> Enterpoint Ltd.
>
>
From: John Adair on 7 Mar 2010 05:25
If you can get it the T9900 is better than T9800 but they are fairly
rare with most companies seem to push the quad core instead.

I have not got a mobile I7 yet but we do have desktop I7 and they have
been very good. Laptops using the desktop I7 have been a definate no
on battery lifetime of 1hr being typical but when I get the chance I
will try the mobile I7 as it promises much. Parallel processors will
be more use in a couple of years when tools have better use of them.

On OS I think there are X64 drivers but I would only go that way if I
had a really large design to deal with. Bugs and problems are far more
common in X64 and Linux versions of the tools and with the relatively
tiny user base bugs can take a while to surface and dare I say it get
fixed. Life is busy enough without adding unnecessary problems.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.

On 6 Mar, 21:45, Michael S <already5cho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:37 pm, John Adair <g...(a)enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I7 laptops if you can get the mobile versions are best but do watch
> > the battery lifetime. Most software isn't using the multiple cores so
> > the next best Core2 duo (T9800) based can be good too.
>
> Why not T9900?
> At single FPGA compilation it should easily beat any 35W member of
> core-i7 family, including i7-620M. FPGA tools love on-chip cache above
> anything else. In fact, it's possible that even T9600 is faster than
> i7-620M.
> i7-820QM would be faster, yet, but at 45W TDP you will likely find it
> only in special heavyweight models.
>
> Of course, if you often find yourself compiling several variants in
> parallel, stick with i7/i5, since in that scenario core2duo is pretty
> weak.
>
> >Have a look at
> > a HP 8730w for one based on T9800. This can go 3-4hrs and double that
> > with an extension battery they have that clips on. That's series
> > computing on battery for most of a normal man's working day. There are
> > quad core ones too but I don't think the extra money is worth
> > spending. Better to spend money on a good SSD drive which are great
> > for making things go faster too if you can get the right one.
>
> > HP are going to release a 8740w at some point in time. Hopefully soon
> > and that is I7 based from what little is in the public domain.
>
> > HP are still offering XP downgrades last time I looked if you want to
> > use Windows as OS. That is one the reasons I use them. Dell do the
> > same.
>
> Do they offer XP64 drivers?
> XP32 is sufficient in for 98% of todays FPGA but the upper 2% (the
> biggest Stratix-IV devices, for example) require 64-bit tools.
>
>
>
> > John Adair
> > Enterpoint Ltd.

From: Michael S on 7 Mar 2010 09:11
On Mar 7, 12:25 pm, John Adair <g...(a)enterpoint.co.uk> wrote:
> If you can get it the T9900 is better than T9800 but they are fairly
> rare with most companies seem to push the quad core instead.
>
> I have not got a mobile I7 yet but we do have desktop I7 and they have
> been very good.

Sure, desktop I7 are fast. With 8MB of cache and not so heavy reliance
on turbo-boost one can expect them being fast.
On the other hand, 35W mobile variants have 4MB or smaller cache and
are critically dependent on turbo-boost, since relatively to mobile
C2D their "normal" clock frequency is slow.
Still, it just my guts feeling, I never benchmarked mobile i7 vs
mobile C2D, so I could be wrong about their relative merits.

> Laptops using the desktop I7 have been a definate no
> on battery lifetime of 1hr being typical but when I get the chance I
> will try the mobile I7 as it promises much. Parallel processors will
> be more use in a couple of years when tools have better use of them.
>
> On OS I think there are X64 drivers but I would only go that way if I
> had a really large design to deal with. Bugs and problems are far more
> common in X64 and Linux versions of the tools and with the relatively
> tiny user base bugs can take a while to surface and dare I say it get
> fixed. Life is busy enough without adding unnecessary problems.
>
> John Adair
> Enterpoint Ltd.
>

For the last year or so we do nearly all our FPGA development on
Ws2003/x64. So far, no problems. Even officially deprecated Rainbow
(now SafeNet) USB Software Guards work fine. XP64 is derived from the
same code base.
We almost never use 64-bit tools, but very much appreciate the ability
to launch numerous instances of memory-hungry 32-bit tools. More a
matter of convenience than necessity? In single-user environment, yes.
But why should we give up convenience that costs so little?



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Modelsim PE vs. Aldec Active-HDL (PE)
Next: Xilinx IOBUF - operation Q (virtex4 chip)