Laptop for FPGA design?

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

"Adam G rski" <totutousungors...@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,

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 Mar 6, 5:37 pm, John Adair <g...@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.

On Mar 7, 12:25 pm, John Adair <g...@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?

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 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:11:07 -0800, Michael S wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:25 pm, John Adair <g...@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?

I have benchmarked Core2s vs iCore7s. 6M Cache iCore2s are faster on a
clock for clock basis then the 8M Cache iCore7 when running NCVerilog.
The iCore7 is a little faster on a clock for clock basis when running
Xilinx place and route tools.

The cache architecture of the iCore7 sucks,
it's a three level cache vs a two level cache on the Core2.

Also there is
less cache per processor on the iCore7 (2M) then the Core2 (3M) so the
degradation in performance is greater.

Finally the absolute clock rate
for the Core2s is higher then it is for the iCore7, combine that with the
faster clock for clock simulation performance and the Core2 is the clear
winner for FPGA development.

On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:11:07 -0800, Michael S wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:25 pm, John Adair <g...@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?

I have benchmarked Core2s vs iCore7s. 6M Cache iCore2s are faster on a
clock for clock basis then the 8M Cache iCore7 when running NCVerilog.
The iCore7 is a little faster on a clock for clock basis when running
Xilinx place and route tools.

My experience with Altera tools (synthesis and p&r, never benchmarked a
simulation) is quite different.
i7-920 (8 MB/2.66 GHz) is like 1.5 times faster than E6750 (4 MB/2.66
GHz) and only marginally slower than E8400 (6MB/3.00 GHz). Taking into
account that the fastest non-extraordinary-expensive i7 variant (i7-960,
3.2 GHz) runs at almost the same frequency as the fastest C2D (E8600,
3.33 GHz) I'd say that in absolute terms core-i7 is faster.

The cache architecture of the iCore7 sucks, it's a three level cache vs
a two level cache on the Core2.

Nehalem's L2 cache is much smaller, yes, but 1.5 times faster. Seem
like a fair trade-off.
Slower L1D cache (4 clocks instead of 3 clocks in C2D) sounds like a
bigger problem.

Also there is
less cache per processor on the iCore7 (2M) then the Core2 (3M) so the
degradation in performance is greater.

Only when running multiple threads.
But we are talking about FPGA development, that is still mostly single-
threaded. Core-i7 has all 8MB available for a single thread. In C2D/ C2Q
a single core has access to 6 MB.


Finally the absolute clock rate
for the Core2s is higher then it is for the iCore7, combine that with
the faster clock for clock simulation performance and the Core2 is the
clear winner for FPGA development.

Only when measured by price/performance. In absolute sense i7-960 (or
i7-975 for rich kids among us) should be faster.
And, of course, in multi-user environment core-i7 (or, for bigger shops,
Xeon-55xx) wins by very wide margin.

Don't take me wrong, I'd very much like the CPU that combines cache
hierarchy of C2D with IMC, turbo-boost and fast unaligned access of
core-i7, but that's not going to happen. With AMD as weak as it is right
now we have no choice but to grab the whole packet that Intel wants to
sell us. And as a packet core-i7 is not bad, especially for multi-user.