04-10-2018 10:23 AM
I have two slightly different designs targeting KU115 device. In Vivado 2017.2, the implementation time is about 4 hours. However, when I used 2017.4 and 2018.1 with same option (PostRoutePhyOpt), it is taking me about 5 hours. I tried with three runs per version, and the one hour difference is quite clear to me. I have excluded the only runs in 2017.4 and 2018.1 in which PostRoutePhyOpt actually does something. All of the runs meet timing eventually. Is this expected?
04-10-2018 11:16 AM
First, thank you for running these benchmarks!
Secondly, these results are not surprising, given that new (and more complex) algorithms are put into Vivado to help close timing. If it's taking longer, then I can only conclude that the Vivado is able to close timing on more difficult designs, given the increased routing time. I kinda wish that Xilinx would do some research into GPU acceleration for place & route.
I just downloaded 2018.1 this morning, and I will be testing it tonight and tomorrow. Now it's time to read the release notes!
04-10-2018 11:23 AM
04-11-2018 06:31 PM
@linzhongduo, agree, 25% is a significant increase. If I were to send you a PM, would you be willing to submit the 2017.2 design so I can run some local tests with it?