Subscribe to EDN

Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing

March 1, 2010

Tabula, a heavily-funded FPGA start-up led by a who’s-who of FPGA- and EDA-industry insiders, this morning unveiled a new FPGA architecture that challenges fundamental assumptions about RAM-configured logic devices. Tabula claims it will deliver FPGAs that in the same device can offer 1.6 GHz clock rates on critical paths, logic and memory capacity comparable to the largest new devices from Altera and Xilinx, rich SerDes, DSP, and memory resources, and yet a die size small enough to sell at a fraction of Stratix IV or Virtex 6 prices. And, despite the startling claims, the devices will use a familiar tool chain and will look to the user like traditional FPGAs.

Such claims clearly require and explanation. Tabula is not claiming a revolution in process technology—the design employs fairly normal 40nm CMOS—or in logic architecture—to the user the Tabula devices will appear as an entirely familiar array of look-up tables (LUTs), latches, and configurable interconnect. Rather, Tabula’s main innovation is to exploit brilliantly a growing imbalance in conventional FPGA implementation.

That imbalance is the disparity between the die area required by interconnect and that required by the logic elements and switches. By the 40nm generation, FPGA logic fabric has become a dense network of interconnect wires covering a very sparse array of LUTs, latches, multiplexers, and buffers. There is space on the silicon for more logic cells, but there is no room to get interconnect to them. You could make the LUTs, which are essentially 1×8 or 1×16 SRAMs, much larger, but studies have shown that his would not improve logic density for real designs. So while the lower routing and via layers are crowded, the space on the surface of the silicon is increasingly underutilized.

Tabula isn’t interested in giving a detailed description of what they’ve done—they much prefer conceptual metaphors—but here’s the idea. Instead of putting a single set of interconnect muxes, a LUT, and a latch in each logic cell, Tabula puts in eight of everything. Then they time-domain multiplex those eight sets of hardware on a 1.6 GHz master clock, so that the physical logic cell has a whole new personality—new interconnect routing, new LUT, and new latch configuration—every 600ps. Over the course of 5ns, the physical logic cell is, in effect, eight different logic cells.

Now the rest of the secret sauce. Tabula embeds transparent latches in the interconnect where it passes through the physical cell, and controls these latches with the time-multiplexing circuitry as well. So on each clock cycle, Tabula captures the state of the interconnect and logic cell in the latches. This allows the chip to pass the output of the LUT, for instance, to the input of the same or a nearby physical LUT on the next clock cycle. All the state that goes in flight during an eight-cycle sequence is available to drive cells on subsequent cycles. It is almost as if the FPGA had eight times as many logic cells as it actually does.

Tabula illustrates this concept as a three-dimensional chip of eight layers. Each logic cell connects to nearby cells around it on one layer, and to nearby cells above it on the next layer, in an expanding cone. In practice, users can visualize their design spread across the three dimensions, or mapped onto a single flat FPGA. However you choose to visualize it, you submit a netlist with timing constraints, and the tools map your nets across physical logic cells and interconnect, and across clock phases, to meet your constraints. Critical nets get mapped vertically, where they can often stay within one physical cell with essentially zero flight time. Nets with more slack get spread more widely across the die.

The architecture has several important implications. first, it packs about three times more logic into a given area than a conventional FPGA. Second, Tabula can emulate eight-port embedded RAM blocks by time-multiplexing the inputs and outputs of a single-port physical RAM, so the company can implement memory that is physically faster, denser, and lower in both static and dynamic power than the true eight-port blocks on a conventional high-end FPGA.

So yes, the claims on speed, density, and cost are plausible. Power is a more complex question. The devices implement a fine-grained clock-gating algorithm based on user signal activity, according to Tabula president and CTO Steve Teig. And the greater density means that the average interconnect length 80 percent shorter than on a conventional FPGA at the same geometry. Both of these factors sharply reduce dynamic power. But at the same time, there is the circuitry that manages the time-domain multiplexing activity, spread across the die in stripes and running at that 1.6 GHz clock frequency. "The net power compared to a conventional FPGA is design-dependent," Teig says. "The architectural overhead may or may not swamp out the savings."

So there is the story: speed, density, low cost. Tabula is aiming initially at the network switch sockets that make up the sweet spot of the high-end FPGA market. Presumably, the company will offer the configurations, on-chip peripherals, and IP those applications require. Specific product announcements should be coming soon, Teig says.

Posted by Ron Wilson on March 1, 2010 | Comments (13)

April 1, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
FPGA curious commented:

Is Tabula's ABAX family all made with a single die? It looks like a single big device with the smaller ones made with less folds or with faulty logic (let unused). What do you guys think?


March 20, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
Uno commented:

Don't even think about surfing the beaches mate. The south side crew wants you bad.


March 15, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
evision commented:

www.sangambayard-c-m.com


March 15, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
evision commented:

www.sangambayard-c-m.com


March 5, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
Jay commented:

I believe that the huge costs of developing chips at the 45 nm and below nodes will erode the custom digital silicon market. The future is obviously writing RTL and connecting up IP blocks on an FPGA, not wiring up digital IC's on a printed wiring board. As process becomes more critical, it makes sense to leverage a few good hardware designs to make thousands of unique chips, rather than trying to design thousands of unique chips at process nodes that are very hard to get right (where mask sets can cost several million dollars). Not only that, the regular structure of FPGAs is more suitable to process tweaking. There are only a few structures to get right at the process level. So the big frontier, as FPGAs get cheaper, bigger, faster and lower in power, is going to be the synthesis and routing tools, as well as standards for IP reuse. Despite having been around for years, neither Verilog nor VHDL excel at IP re-use. Though powerful linting tools exist, it is still a challenge to write RTL once and have it work on a variety of platforms. I would go so far as to say that it cannot be done.


March 4, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
dick_freebird commented:

As an outsider to FPGAs, I've found the entry cost for the tasks at hand so high that I fell back to PCB and handwiring. I had no need for N+1 of them. So I think there's a lot to be said for, not making the big end bigger, but making the low to middle end more cost effective. Not-paying for silicon "white space" at advanced fab wafer costs, has to help. It's only a zero-sum game if you constrain the applications, and one serious constraint on applying FPGAs is indeed the price paid for unused physical features.


March 4, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
WT commented:

Like it or not, the FPGA market is somewhat a mature market, as indicated by only 3 major players. There needs to be a fundamental shift to change the market, such as Xilinx field programmable vs LSI Logic gate array. Tabula may have a novel technique, but as a user, I actually don't care as much how the logic is done. I don't care if it is LUT4, LUT6, dynamically configurable, etc. I just want to know if the part will take in my Verilog, I/O requirements, and do the job. In this case, part quality, price, and supply chain matter. Tabula will find out that the biggest cost is tape out NRE, test cost, and providing tool chain. Smaller chips might give you better per piece pricing, but you could only go so low because you need to pay for everything else. Test will be huge since Tabula will need to test for many configurations, unlike a fixed function ASIC.


March 1, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
KevinK commented:

AndyT looks at the market as a zero-sum game, but Tabula could change the economics of the FPGA business. I read a comment on another site that brought up an interesting question: how difficult will it be to debug designs on the Tabula chip? The hardest part now for Tabula is getting the product out in the market, winning designs, ramping production, and finding (patient) funding thoughout.


March 1, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
Just me commented:

I think some people are worrying too much about power consumed and cost in the current market, but I think the new idea, if it produces cheap FFPGA's, will open so many markets, that it could take a 3B market to 10B or 12B as if these things are cheap enough and have a easly usable code generation system, they could be used in many aplications that currently use far simpler devices like PAL's, GAL's, etc. As far as I can see the skys the limit, and there are many many aplications that don't realy care about power useage.


March 1, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
Andy T commented:

@Max: Isn't that what LSI Logic, a "gate array" company with the lion's share of the market, said about Xilinx?


March 1, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
Max commented:

Because many FPGA users demand a stable supplier, it's very difficult for a startup. So the most likely path for Tabula, if they prove the concept works, is to sell the company.


March 1, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
Dave commented:

It is great to see new FPGA technologies coming to the market. Unlike the previous poster, I believe that the FPGA market is on another growth spurt. If it were not for the financial crisis, we would be seeing more evidence of this. As the FPGA vendors focus on vertical solutions and as the FPGAs are capable of taking on more applications with each smaller geometry node, the market will certainly expand. Tabula is taking these trends and accelerating them further with an architecture play. So long as their product works and does not consume more power than the Altera and Xilinx equivalents, they may have a home run for themselves and the users.


March 1, 2010
In response to: Tabula FPGAs: this one could be game-changing
Andy T commented:

Facinating! I very recently investigated "folded logic" for a startup effort we were trying to get off the ground using IP from academia, actually doing some VC pitches in Silicon Valley with the concept - this one sounds quite similar if not identical, and Tabula seemed to become the investment benchmark for FPGA startups, if I recall correctly, $89M. The big problem I uncovered in my efforts in all this "logic" is that, if the Tabula devices actually work and succeed in taking proverbial candy from the Stratix/Virtex baby, Tabula will likely take a $3B FPGA industry to $1B if they apply Spartan/Cyclone pricing models to the high end market and are actually matched by the two duopolists. The Tabula strategy does not expand the FPGA - it actually contracts it in terms of sales, as it's a rather inelastic market, especially in the high end devices. Once Xilinx and Altera sniff this out as a real potential threat, they'll probably counter...just as they did with the Lattice threat when Arria GX was introduced. Either with Cyclone IV GX (which it seems is poised already), or by dropping prices altogether. In any case, volumes and price weighting may shift to making FPGAs a $1B industry.....yikes! Good for board and system designers - a threat to the very existence and viability of a duopoly, or more importantly to Moshe's and John's stock options. What's next? Look for a hush money buyout of Tabula in the guise of acquiring this novel IP, I predict....but then, there my be antitrust issues to deal with if this is perceived as a real duopoly. If that's the case, then there will likely be severe cost cutting to keep profitability - likely achievable only in places like Malaysia, a place to where Altera's made major moves already in terms of US job cuts. Thanks Dennis! Live long and prosper....

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2011 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows