Breaking News
Blog

According to George: The rules dont apply to us

Blog
10/20/2011 04:26 PM EDT

 4 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Etmax
User Rank
Rookie
re: According to George: The rules dont apply to us
Etmax   11/23/2011 2:48:40 PM
NO RATINGS
But isn't the verification part of the design process of the chip, rather than its manufacture? In automotive design the design is designed and verified not unlike a chip design is designed and verified. Aren't we designing parts and process so that volume production is a multiple of the same? The design process happens only once, so that process has to contain significant verification. Maybe I'm missing something here??

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: According to George: The rules dont apply to us
Duane Benson   10/31/2011 4:50:35 AM
NO RATINGS
Is it possible that the complexity of a big chip is simply beyond the tools of the time? An airplane can have its wing spar tested. It can have FEA performed on fasteners. It can have the shape tested in a wind tunnel or in a simulator. According to the Boeing web site, there are six million parts in a 747 with half being fasteners. The 747 has a pretty good record of having quality designed in as well as a good record of test and inspection. Does it matter that all of the parts are big enough to hold in your hand? Modern CPUs have transistor counts of 3/4 of a billion and up. FPGAs and memory chips get up in to the multiple billions. I can see some functional blocks as being relatively easy to both design quality in and verify after the fact (memory), but other sections, the complexity is just mind-boggling. Design schedules are likely a big factor as well. Designers are far too often simply not given enough days on the calendar to spend the time necessary to design enough quality in at the start.

cdhmanning
User Rank
Rookie
re: According to George: The rules dont apply to us
cdhmanning   10/30/2011 6:40:19 PM
NO RATINGS
From 50,000 ft all design domains (ie. automotive, chip, software, bridges) share some characteristics. What differs though is the cost or verification and testing vs the cost of error. It is, however, important to draw the distinction between design testing/verification and per-unit verification testing. Verification of the design of a chip or a new car model is very different to testing each individual chip or car on the line. We can do "unit testing" on everything from cables and bolts to parts of a chip design to software.We can also do integration testing on sub-assemblies of the above. However the cost/value trade off of doing these tests is differenc across different domains. Where the difference shows up is in the cost of a "do over". In software and chip design, the cost of constructing a sub-assembly to test partial assembly is relatively cheap (assuming you can use an FPGA for the chip testing). When building a bridge that is not the case. So while it is interesting to have a look at different ideas and look for opportunities for cross pollenation, it is not a given that they will be beneficial.

August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.