1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 355.5874 South Korean Won

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 30.9149 Kenyan Shilling

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 31.0974 Japanese Yen

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.2068 Jordanian Dinar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 42.6308 Icelandic Krona

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 22.0104 Indian Rupee

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 1.0222 Israeli New Sheqel

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 4306.6366 Indonesian Rupiah

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 94.1995 Hungarian Forint

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 2.0227 Croatian Kuna

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 7.2967 Honduran Lempira

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 2.2642 Hong Kong Dollar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.235 British Pound Sterling

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.6568 Fiji Dollar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.2657 Euro

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 4.537 Egyptian Pound

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 4.1577 Estonian Kroon

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 37.4116 Algerian Dinar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 16.045 Dominican Peso

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 2.0059 Danish Krone

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 7.3265 Czech Republic Koruna

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 165.8525 Costa Rican Colon

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 1135.88 Colombian Peso

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 2.0622 Chinese Yuan Renminbi

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 240.7325 Chilean Peso

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.2831 Swiss Franc

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.4086 Canadian Dollar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 3.5402 Botswana Pula

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 1.6711 Brazilian Real

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 2.0102 Bolivian Boliviano

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.412 Brunei Dollar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.1102 Bahraini Dinar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.5263 Bulgarian Lev

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 24.777 Bangladeshi Taka

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.4461 Australian Dollar

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 19.3777 Argentine Peso

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 0.5233 Netherlands Antillean Guilder

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 1.0708 United Arab Emirates Dirham

1 Brunei Dollar = 35.7294 Philippine Peso

1 Brunei Dollar = 2.4273 Papua New Guinean Kina

1 Brunei Dollar = 5.0056 Chinese Yuan Renminbi

1 Brunei Dollar = 47.0351 Argentine Peso

Differentiating good IP from mediocre or bad IP is getting more difficult, in part because it depends upon how and where it is used and in part, because even the best IP may work better in one system than another—even in chips developed by the same vendor.  

So, how do you measure IP quality and why it is so complicated?

The answer depends on who is asking. Most of the time, the definition of IP quality depends on your vantage point.  If you are an R&D manager, IP quality means something. If you are a global supply manager, IP quality means something else. If you are an SoC start-up, your measure of quality is quite different from that of an established fabless company. If you are designing IP in-house, then your considerations are very different than being a commercial IP vendor. If you are designing an automotive SoC, then we are in a totally different category. How about as an IP vendor? How do you articulate IP quality metrics to your customers?

This varies greatly by the type of IP, as well. When it comes to interface (hard) IP and controllers, if you are an R&D manager, your goal is to design IP that meets the IP specifications and PPA (power, performance, and area) targets. You need to validate your design via silicon test chips. This applies to all hard PHYs, which must be mapped to a particular foundry process. For controllers that are in RTL form—we called these soft IP—you have to synthesize them into a particular target library in a particular foundry process in order to realize them in a physical form suitable for SoC integration. Of course, your design will need to go through a series of design validation steps via simulation, design verification and passing the necessary DRC checks, etc. In addition, you want to see the test silicon in various process corners to ensure the IP is robust and will perform well under normal process variations in the production wafers.

For someone in IP procurement, the measure of quality will be based on the maturity of the IP. This involves the number of designs that have been taped out using this IP and the history of bug reports and subsequent fixes. You will be looking for quality of the documentation and the technical deliverables. You will also benchmark the supplier’s standard operating procedures for bug reporting and technical support, as well as meeting delivery performance in prior programs. This is in addition to the technical teams doing their technical diligence.

An in-house team that is likely to design IP for a particular SoC project will be using an established design flow and will have legacy knowledge of last generation’s IP. They may be required to design the IP with some reusability in mind for future programs. However, such reusability requirements will not need to be as stringent and as broad as those of commercial IP vendors because there are likely to be established metrics and procedures in place to follow as part of the design team’s standard operating procedures. Many times, new development based on a prior design that has been proven in use will be started, given this stable starting point. All of these criteria help the team achieve a quality outcome more easily.

Then, if designing for an automotive SoC, additional heavy lifting is required.  Aside from ensuring that the IP meets the specifications of the protocol standards and passes the compliance testing, you also must pay attention to meeting functional safety requirements. This means adherence to ISO 26262 requirements and subsequently achieving ASIL certification. Oftentimes, even for IP, you must perform some AEC-Q100-related tests that are relevant to IP, such as ESD, LU, and HTOL.

To read more, please visit: https://semiengineering.com/why-ip-quality-is-so-difficult-to-determine/

PCIe has been widely adopted in the electronics industry since its first debut in 2003 (PCIe 1.0 standard release) for wide breach of applications, from Data Center Server, Networking, to Mobile, AI/ML, Automotive, IoT, and many others…. It’s a versatile, high-performance, robust, mature interconnect standard with full “backward compatibility” (e.g., a PCIe 3.0 device can still function well in a PCIe 4.0 system) which enables a solid and strong PCIe eco-system in the industry.  While the market, so as the users,  are enjoying the systems, e.g., desktop/laptop, powered (or to be more specific: “bridged”) by PCIe 3.0 since 2010, the industry is pushing hard for the PCIe 4.0 eco-system enablement. Earlier this year, AMD announced it X570 chipset would support the PCIe 4.0 interface and Phison also introduced the world’s first PCIe 4.0 SSD.

On the standard evolution front, the official PCIe 5.0 came out in May 2019, doubling the data rate to 32GT/s from 16GT/s in PCIe 4.0. The PCIe 6.0 standard will be released in 2021 based on the announcement made by PCI-SIG in June’19 with the goal to further double the data rate to 64GT/s with incorporating the PAM4 coding.

PCIe Protocol Evolution

Having said that, is the latest generation of PCIe always desired?  

My answer would be positive. Just like car maker/enthusiast has kept pursuing faster car in the history, there is no doubt that these speed enhancements/upgrades in the electronic world certainly provide a tremendous benefit for especially those applications craving the most throughput, such as Data center, HPC, Networking, Cloud and AI applications.   

But, does every application have to opt for the fastest speed (bandwidth)? My view would be leaning toward “Not really”. Just like we don’t need a 3-second sport car (meaning 0-60mph acceleration < 3s) for daily commute though it would certainly spice some driving fun on the road, but it may not be "the best fit" for most of commuters.

There are applications still well satisfied with PCIe 3.0 (or even older PCIe 2.0) for its best performance and cost balance.  Those applications include, but not limit to, IoT/consumer, Edge AI, SSD (non-enterprise),…etc. They typically need to make trade-off in between the cost, power consumption (especially battery powered), flexibility on changing product features, and time-to-market (TTM). To address such type of market needs, Cadence also offers an PPA (Performance, Power, Area) optimized PCIe 3.0 solution in addition to its high-performance PCIe 4.0 product line.

Cadence PCIe 3.0 PHY Solution (with Multi-Protocol Multi-Link feature)

With leveraging the multi-protocol SerDes implementation, the same Cadence PHY IP support multi-protocol and multi-link operation. Such a multi-protocol enabled PHY gives the SoC developers the optimum flexibility to integrate multiple commonly used interface protocols (e.g., PCIe 3.0 + USB 3.0) with using only a single PHY design.  This would largely save the product development time (faster TTM), reduce the risk of using multiple different PHY instances (for different protocol needs), and with the configurability to enable different product features/protocols.

Some people might say PCIe 3.0 era has gone. I was not quite yet being convinced as I still see its potential to shine a lot of market use cases. What do you think?

More Information

For more information on Cadence's PCIe IP offerings, see our PCI Express page.

For more information on PCIe in general, and on the various PCI standards, see the PCI-SIG website.

Related Posts

• Blog: PCIe Gen4: It’s Official, We’re Compliant
• Blog: The PCIe 4.0 Era Continues at PCI-SIG Developers Conference 2016
• Blog: Cadence PCIe Solutions: Configurable, Compliant, and Low Power

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

I have a file that list all the `defines that is used in the current design. This file (define.vh) is generated, like so :

`define MACRO_1 5

`define MACRO_2 1'h0

... etc

But in genus when I run the command

read_hdl define.vh

read_hdl -sv top.sv

The tool work as if the defines never get parsed and returns with unreferenced errors. How can I resolve this? Do I have to include 'define.vh' in all the design files?

Happy New Year! Have you tried the new Transmission Line Library (rfTlineLib) yet? In case you missed it, rfTlineLib was introduced in IC 6.1.6 ISR1 plus MMSIM 12.1.1 -or- MMSIM13.1. You may wonder....Why should I use the new rfTlineLib ? Well...(read more)

Hi Folks, A question that I've often received from designers, "Is there a method to determine the amount of memory required before I submit a job? I use distributed processing and need to provide an estimate before submitting jobs." The answer...(read more)

I have a SKILL script that executes the callback of a menu item, and depends on first redefining an environment variable. 

When a user interrupts the script with ctrl-C, the script cannot finish to set the environment variable back to its default value.

How can I write the script in a way that handles a user interrupt to reset the changed environment variable after the interrupt?

As the stakes for winning server segment market share grow ever higher an increasing number of companies are seeking to grasp the latest Holy Grail of multi-chip coherence. The approach promises to better enable applications such as machine learning...(read more)