( ESNUG 257 Item 4 ) -------------------------------------------- [12/12/96]
From: [ The Chicken Man ]
Subject: User's Benchmark Of Model Tech V4.5c vs. Synopsys VSS 3.4b & 3.3b
Hi John,
Here's some benchmark data that may interest you. The first shows the
differences in run speed for 2 versions of Synopsys VSS vs. Model Tech
that were done on a Sun Ultra-1, equipped as described below.
The second shows the differences between a Sun Ultra-1 (1 CPU) with 448M
vs. a Sun Ultra-2 (2 CPUs) with 1 Gig of memory.
The sets of data are actually runs of the same simulation for all of the
cases. The 1st runs were on the same Sun Ultra-1 as the data taken for the
Ultra-1 vs. Ultra-2 test cases.
Rather than incur the wrath of the EDA vendor gods, and be doomed to be
awash in a sea of "X"s for the rest of my simulating life, please delete
my name. Best wishes,
-- [ The Chicken Man ]
Benchmark Data for Synopsys VSS 3.3b, 3.4b, and ModelTech V4.5c.
****************************************************************
The benchmark was a single testbench on a board level design containing:
- 4 copies of a 415K gate ASIC (36,000 lines of RTL),
- 1 copy of an 70K gate ASIC (4500 lines of RTL) and
- 16 models of a 64K by 18 SSRAM."
The ASICs perform a complex switching function.
Each simulation logged about 200 signals into a waveform data file for
later viewing, and each simulation wrote 43,000 lines of textio output to
the transcript file ( used for movie viewing ).
Simulations were compiled and run on the same Ultra1. No swapping.
Speed of simulation
-------------------
which TB_ICP_BTA sim Relative sim times
--------------------- -------------- ------------------
VSS V3.3B Interpreted 240 minutes 100%
VSS V3.3B Compiled 94 40%
VSS V3.4B Interpreted 191 80%
VSS V3.4B Compiled 48 20%
Model tech V4.5c 47 20%
Speed of compilation
--------------------
I did not accurately measure this, but its pretty dramatic between Synopsys
compiled and interpreted.
VSS V3.xB Interpreted FAST
VSS V3.xB Compiled 5-10 X slower
Model tech V4.5c FAST
Kernel Size
----------
VSS V3.3B Interpreted 100 MB
VSS V3.3B Compiled ---
VSS V3.4B Interpreted 92 MB
VSS V3.4B Compiled 85 MB
Model tech V4.5c 18 MB ( !!! I swear )
Library Size
------------
VSS V3.xB Interpreted 15 MB
VSS V3.xB Compiled 18 MB
Model tech V4.5c 10 MB
Usability:
------------
The Model Tech waveform tool is less capable than Synopsys's, but the host
of other methods of viewing your data more than makes up for it. Model
Tech waveform is much faster at viewing lots of data (full view).
ModelTech crashed once in the waveform tool. Synopsys never crashed.
Executuve Summary
-----------------
Synopsys (compiled) and ModelTech are neck and neck in sim speed for this
one design. Otherwise, MTI has much smaller simulator images, compiles
faster, provides more information, is easier to use, you don't have to
worry about compiled vs interpreted.
Synopsys is more forgiving of VHDL semantic content, has a fuller featured
wave viewer, and might be more robust on the bigger circuits.
Benchmark Data for Synopsys VSS 3.4b SUN Ultra-1 Vs. An Ultra-2
***************************************************************
No other significant jobs were running on either machine.
The simulation library was NOT local to either machine.
Kernel size for the VSS3.4b compiled code simulation: 85 MB
Ultra-1 Ultra-2 diff
-------- -------- -----
wall clock time: 51.7 min 34.5 min 67%
cpu time: 2900 sec 2018 sec 70%
Note: This same simulation was taking us about 4 hours for similar
test simulations in the spring, using VSS V3.3b interpreted
code running on Ultra-1's.
for the Ultra-1
---------------
CPU: SUNW,UltraSPARC
FRAME BUFFER(S): cgsix, cgsix
SunOS RELEASE: 5.5
MEMORY: 448MB
SWAP: 3584.6MB total, 148.7MB used, 3435.8MB available
LOAD AVERAGE: 1.26, 1.14, 0.79
for the Ultra-2
---------------
CPU: SUNW,UltraSPARC
CPU: SUNW,UltraSPARC
CPU: SUNW,ffb
FRAME BUFFER(S): cgthree
SunOS RELEASE: 5.5.1
MEMORY: 1024MB
SWAP: 2453.0MB total, 28.7MB used, 2424.3MB available
LOAD AVERAGE: 0.20, 0.10, 0.06
Executuve Summary
-----------------
The Ultra-2 ran the single simulation 50% faster ( simulation time is 67%
of the Ultra-1's ). There is no swapping on either machine, and the
Ultra-2 appears to only use one cpu for the single simulation.
|
|
