> Octopart Avnet costs for 1 unit > > XC7A100T-2CSG324C $131.22 > XC7A50T-2CSG324C $74.98
FWIW, AFAICT we’d want the FGG484 for the 4 GTPs. Price from Avnet is then 170EUR for the 100T v 100EUR for the 50T. Cost difference is still something like 35EUR taking into account Greg’s comment. Greg, how much do you think it will cost to buy a complete Kasli? Assuming it’s something like $500-$1k, the $35 difference in FPGA cost seems like a non-issue to me. > Kasli was meant to be a simple and low-cost board without a backplane, > and you are now using the backplane as an argument… The BP can be a simple break-out adapter, as suggested by Robert. This is our current plan for running a 16 channel laser servo from a single Kasli. T > On 29 Jun 2017, at 20:55, [email protected] wrote: > > Send ARTIQ mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARTIQ digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 (Thomas Harty) > 2. Re: ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 (Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed)) > 3. Re: ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 (Sébastien Bourdeauducq) > 4. Re: ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 (Joe Britton) > 5. Re: ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 (Grzegorz Kasprowicz) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:16:32 +0000 > From: Thomas Harty <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ARTIQ] ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Sébastien, > > Given the relatively low cost of the Artix-7 FPGAs, my preference is > generally to go as big and as fast as reasonably possible. I don't want to > find that, for example, we can't fit a hard FPU/fancy servo on Kasli because > we saved $50 on the FPGA. Also, since gateware development is usually much > more expensive than hardware, I'd rather go for dumb/inefficient gateware on > big FPGAs than have to optimise the gateware to fit on a smaller FPGA. > > The fact that going for a 75T/100T gives us access to 12EEMs/Kasli (4 on the > BP) rather than 10EEMs/Kasli (only 2 on the BP) for the 50T is an added > benefit. > > Having said all that, if you think the 50T in the -2 speed grade won't be a > limitation then I'm happy to go along with your recommendation... > > T > > ________________________________________ > From: ARTIQ [[email protected]] on behalf of > [email protected] [[email protected]] > Sent: 29 June 2017 11:00 > To: [email protected] > Subject: ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > > Send ARTIQ mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARTIQ digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Kasli FPGA selection (Sébastien Bourdeauducq) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:23:04 +0800 > From: Sébastien Bourdeauducq <[email protected]> > To: Thomas Harty <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Grzegorz > Kasprowicz <[email protected]> > Subject: [ARTIQ] Kasli FPGA selection > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 04:52 PM, Thomas Harty wrote: >> Have we settled on the 50T as the FPGA for the first version of Kasli, >> and what speed grade? > > I would advocate for the 50T in -2 speed grade for two main reasons: > a) I don't think we need that much FPGA resources for the 100T to be needed. > b) -2 speed grade transceivers go to 6.25Gbps whereas -1 speed grade > ones go to 3.75Gbps. In addition to a significant increase in bandwidth, > the -2 transceivers can use the same configuration on the Metlino/Sayma > side which is used for the backplane (5Gbps). Otherwise we would have to > generate another set of Ultrascale transceiver settings (and shave a > yak) and potentially deal with weird RTIO frequency ratios in a hybrid > MTCA/Eurocard Sinara system. > > Sébastien > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARTIQ mailing list > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > ************************************ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:27:17 +0000 > From: "Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed)" <[email protected]> > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ARTIQ] ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > Message-ID: > > <by1pr09mb05994c1bc69d7602f88fb88191...@by1pr09mb0599.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I second Tom's thoughts here -- I would go for the largest Artix-7 we can > reasonably accommodate, just for flexibility. Going with the -2 speed grade > sounds like it makes a lot of sense. > > > Best, > > Daniel > > ________________________________ > From: ARTIQ <[email protected]> on behalf of Thomas Harty via > ARTIQ <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:16:32 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ARTIQ] ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > > Sébastien, > > Given the relatively low cost of the Artix-7 FPGAs, my preference is > generally to go as big and as fast as reasonably possible. I don't want to > find that, for example, we can't fit a hard FPU/fancy servo on Kasli because > we saved $50 on the FPGA. Also, since gateware development is usually much > more expensive than hardware, I'd rather go for dumb/inefficient gateware on > big FPGAs than have to optimise the gateware to fit on a smaller FPGA. > > The fact that going for a 75T/100T gives us access to 12EEMs/Kasli (4 on the > BP) rather than 10EEMs/Kasli (only 2 on the BP) for the 50T is an added > benefit. > > Having said all that, if you think the 50T in the -2 speed grade won't be a > limitation then I'm happy to go along with your recommendation... > > T > > ________________________________________ > From: ARTIQ [[email protected]] on behalf of > [email protected] [[email protected]] > Sent: 29 June 2017 11:00 > To: [email protected] > Subject: ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > > Send ARTIQ mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARTIQ digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Kasli FPGA selection (Sébastien Bourdeauducq) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:23:04 +0800 > From: Sébastien Bourdeauducq <[email protected]> > To: Thomas Harty <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Grzegorz > Kasprowicz <[email protected]> > Subject: [ARTIQ] Kasli FPGA selection > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 04:52 PM, Thomas Harty wrote: >> Have we settled on the 50T as the FPGA for the first version of Kasli, >> and what speed grade? > > I would advocate for the 50T in -2 speed grade for two main reasons: > a) I don't think we need that much FPGA resources for the 100T to be needed. > b) -2 speed grade transceivers go to 6.25Gbps whereas -1 speed grade > ones go to 3.75Gbps. In addition to a significant increase in bandwidth, > the -2 transceivers can use the same configuration on the Metlino/Sayma > side which is used for the backplane (5Gbps). Otherwise we would have to > generate another set of Ultrascale transceiver settings (and shave a > yak) and potentially deal with weird RTIO frequency ratios in a hybrid > MTCA/Eurocard Sinara system. > > Sébastien > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARTIQ mailing list > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > ************************************ > _______________________________________________ > ARTIQ mailing list > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://ssl.serverraum.org/lists-archive/artiq/attachments/20170629/dbb942dc/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 21:37:27 +0800 > From: Sébastien Bourdeauducq <[email protected]> > To: Thomas Harty <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ARTIQ] ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On Thursday, June 29, 2017 06:16 PM, Thomas Harty via ARTIQ wrote: >> The fact that going for a 75T/100T gives us access to 12EEMs/Kasli (4 >> on the BP) rather than 10EEMs/Kasli (only 2 on the BP) for the 50T is >> an added benefit. > Kasli was meant to be a simple and low-cost board without a backplane, > and you are now using the backplane as an argument... > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:43:00 -0400 > From: Joe Britton <[email protected]> > To: Sébastien Bourdeauducq <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Thomas Harty > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ARTIQ] ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > Message-ID: > <cae2_b1urfvnzvaiyycvwurgbc5yz9ckw+-xz6+ntbt6+h4f...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Octopart Avnet costs for 1 unit > > XC7A100T-2CSG324C $131.22 > XC7A50T-2CSG324C $74.98 > > Greg, What is the cost differential between 50T-2 and 100T-2 assuming > Xilinx open source pricing? -Joe > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 21:55:16 +0200 > From: Grzegorz Kasprowicz <[email protected]> > To: Joe Britton <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Thomas Harty > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ARTIQ] ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6 > Message-ID: > <CAGKrh=ggc-0mweiz123lj5nsnizirbk6dcxeiymnhfejfhi...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Usually one can expect half of octopart prices. > So the difference would be about 30$ > > On 29 June 2017 at 21:43, Joe Britton via ARTIQ <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Octopart Avnet costs for 1 unit >> >> XC7A100T-2CSG324C $131.22 >> XC7A50T-2CSG324C $74.98 >> >> Greg, What is the cost differential between 50T-2 and 100T-2 assuming >> Xilinx open source pricing? -Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> ARTIQ mailing list >> https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://ssl.serverraum.org/lists-archive/artiq/attachments/20170629/ab4bb70a/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARTIQ mailing list > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARTIQ Digest, Vol 37, Issue 7 > ************************************ _______________________________________________ ARTIQ mailing list https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq
