No. That could be done for free, but it would exclude forum members from being able to compile the Verilog themselves and try out new ideas of their own.
If you let people try the code by themselves, why we should be limited to Altera/Quartus?
Xilinx has a Artix 7 with 215,360 Logic elements (XC7A200T). This is 44% bigger than Cyclone V A7. And almost the same price: $187 US. Packaging is the same: 484 BGA in 19x19mm or 23x23mm. From what I have read I think it is supposed to be supported by the free version of Vivado. (EDIT: 7A200T is supported by free version of Vivado, also 7K160T)
I can understand that you already had some NRE expenses in Altera licenses. But for future development, should we still be tied to Altera? They already discontinued hardcopy so I don't see any advantage in doing the design with Altera, unless there are other strong reasons.
This is another good reason to have two different boards (Base board + IO board).
No. That could be done for free, but it would exclude forum members from being able to compile the Verilog themselves and try out new ideas of their own.
If you haven't already, you should contact Altera about this. The fact that the A9 version requires use of the non-free version of Quartus appears to be an arbitrary limitation. However, that decision is triggering discussions here that include suggestions of switching to Xilinx. Altera needs to understand that they also have a vested interest in this endeavor. Every individual that gets involved in the P3 (and whatever else that Parallax is planning to do with the new FPGA board) is a win for Altera. The PR/marketing value of this cannot be overstated, I think.
(note: To be clear, I know nothing about Xilinx. My only knowledge of FPGAs is the Altera Cyclone. However, if Xilinx can provide more at a lower or similar price, I'm fine with switching to another FPGA manufacturer. It is clear from these discussions that people are planning toward the future, and it would be a shame if we limited options simply because Altera imposes that arbitrary limitation.)
I have used Xilinx FPGAs in the past and more recently played with the Spartan 3.
While I like their software, I have not used Alteras software so cannot compare them.
I fairly sure Altera would come tothe party with A9 software.
However, I would not advocate a change to Xilinx at this time. There wouldbe too much time wasted by Chip to get up to speed - hes onthe critical path.
Comments
If you let people try the code by themselves, why we should be limited to Altera/Quartus?
Xilinx has a Artix 7 with 215,360 Logic elements (XC7A200T). This is 44% bigger than Cyclone V A7. And almost the same price: $187 US. Packaging is the same: 484 BGA in 19x19mm or 23x23mm. From what I have read I think it is supposed to be supported by the free version of Vivado. (EDIT: 7A200T is supported by free version of Vivado, also 7K160T)
I can understand that you already had some NRE expenses in Altera licenses. But for future development, should we still be tied to Altera? They already discontinued hardcopy so I don't see any advantage in doing the design with Altera, unless there are other strong reasons.
This is another good reason to have two different boards (Base board + IO board).
If you haven't already, you should contact Altera about this. The fact that the A9 version requires use of the non-free version of Quartus appears to be an arbitrary limitation. However, that decision is triggering discussions here that include suggestions of switching to Xilinx. Altera needs to understand that they also have a vested interest in this endeavor. Every individual that gets involved in the P3 (and whatever else that Parallax is planning to do with the new FPGA board) is a win for Altera. The PR/marketing value of this cannot be overstated, I think.
(note: To be clear, I know nothing about Xilinx. My only knowledge of FPGAs is the Altera Cyclone. However, if Xilinx can provide more at a lower or similar price, I'm fine with switching to another FPGA manufacturer. It is clear from these discussions that people are planning toward the future, and it would be a shame if we limited options simply because Altera imposes that arbitrary limitation.)
While I like their software, I have not used Alteras software so cannot compare them.
I fairly sure Altera would come tothe party with A9 software.
However, I would not advocate a change to Xilinx at this time. There wouldbe too much time wasted by Chip to get up to speed - hes onthe critical path.
just my 2c