Compilation time for Quartus II 9.0

To be honest, it's worth installing and trying for yourself. (Luckily, Quartus II plays quite nicely when having multiple versions installed, although I've heard complaints about SOPC builder, but I don't use it.)

The reason I say that is it's very design dependent. About the timeframe you're talking(7.2 to 8.1, I don't think there was a 7.3), the physical synthesis algorithms were improved a lot, so that easily could be the gains you see.

Linux versions were also greatly improved(they were actually far behind windows for a technical reason, and were moved to being close to par).

It also depends on what family you're targeting, as older families generally won't see specific algorithmic impromvenets, just generalized improvements(like the Linux improvement). I don't think 9.0 is going to improve as much, but it's worth trying to find out.

Thanks for the quick reply, Rysc. I understand that it is design dependent, but I will give it a try and post the result here just in case someone (like myself) want to get an idea about it.

If anyone who had done this sort of comparison and like to share the result, please feel free to post here too. Thanks.

Hi

I have a somewhat disappointing result for our design here:

With Quartus 8.1, the fitter needs between 2h15 and 3h15 for different seeds, synthesis is 51min.

With Quartus 9.0, the fitter needs between 3 and 6 hours, with the mean value around 5h. Synthesis is somewhat shorter (46min).

I have to say that the design is made for an ASIC - and even there the clocking strategy is not very nice. For an FPGA it is disastrous.

So if anyone has a cool trick with settings to remedy hold time violations due to clock skew - please tell me ;) I can't change the design for now...

Thanks

emanuel

Are you saying that Q9.0 is optimize positive hold requirements inside the device and that's why it's taking longer? Note that when look at compile times, I always look at the fitter messages, as it breaks out placement time, physical synthesis time(which is part of total placement) and route time, just so I can monitor where the fitter is spending time, and when comparing different results, I know what changed.

If you have Assignments -> Fitter -> Optimize Hold Timing = All Paths, and Optimize Fast Corner checked, then you already have the cool settings to have the router add delays to meet your hold requirements. But naturally this increases routing resources and can make compile times get longer, or even make the design hard to route. This is expected in an FPGA with large clock skews.

(There is also an Assignment -> Analysys & Synthesis -> More Settings -> Auto Gated Clock Conversion, which could help a lot of it works on your design. I don't know enough about it, and there are plenty of gated clock implementations that can't be improved, but it's probably worth a try.)

--- Quote Start ---

With Quartus 8.1, the fitter needs between 2h15 and 3h15 for different seeds, synthesis is 51min.

With Quartus 9.0, the fitter needs between 3 and 6 hours, with the mean value around 5h. Synthesis is somewhat shorter (46min).

--- Quote End ---

Hi emanuel,

Have you taken the incremental compilation into consideration? Usually compiling the second time takes much shorter time than the first time. If the compilation time in 9.0 is a first-time compile while the time for 8.1 is not, it may not be fair.

I am having a cyclone 3 design compiling right now in 9.0 for the second time and will post the result soon.

Hua

So here is my result:

3C120 design, same source, same constraints, two independant directory, compiled twice each for 8.1 and 9.0 (for the second time the design was changed by one line, which pulls different signals to test pins).

Resource usage: 52% in 9.0 and 54% in 8.1.

8.1:

; Analysis & Synthesis ; 00:11:00 ; 1.0 ; 417 MB ; 00:10:52;

; Partition Merge ; 00:00:32 ; 1.0 ; 345 MB ; 00:00:32;

; Fitter ; 00:30:28 ; 1.3 ; 899 MB ; 00:36:48;

; Assembler ; 00:00:18 ; 1.0 ; 514 MB ; 00:00:17;

; TimeQuest Timing Analyzer ; 00:01:36 ; 1.5 ; 617 MB ; 00:02:21;

; Design Assistant ; 00:01:52 ; 1.0 ; 474 MB ; 00:01:51;

; EDA Netlist Writer ; 00:00:46 ; 1.0 ; 468 MB ; 00:00:46;

; Analysis & Synthesis ; 00:02:47 ; 1.0 ; 415 MB ; 00:02:44;

; Partition Merge ; 00:00:33 ; 1.0 ; 346 MB ; 00:00:31;

; Fitter ; 00:30:18 ; 1.3 ; 896 MB ; 00:36:37;

; Assembler ; 00:00:17 ; 1.0 ; 514 MB ; 00:00:17;

; TimeQuest Timing Analyzer ; 00:01:35 ; 1.5 ; 616 MB ; 00:02:20;

; Design Assistant ; 00:01:51 ; 1.0 ; 473 MB ; 00:01:51;

; EDA Netlist Writer ; 00:00:46 ; 1.0 ; 467 MB ; 00:00:46;

; Total ; 01:24:39 ; -- ; -- ; 01:38:33;

9.0

; Analysis & Synthesis ; 00:24:48 ; 1.0 ; 919 MB ; 00:24:31;

; Partition Merge ; 00:00:31 ; 1.0 ; 279 MB ; 00:00:3;

; Fitter ; 00:25:02 ; 1.5 ; 954 MB ; 00:29:45;

; Assembler ; 00:00:18 ; 1.0 ; 517 MB ; 00:00:18;

; TimeQuest Timing Analyzer ; 00:02:22 ; 1.1 ; 613 MB ; 00:02:27;

; Design Assistant ; 00:01:48 ; 1.0 ; 480 MB ; 00:01:47;

; EDA Netlist Writer ; 00:00:42 ; 1.0 ; 480 MB ; 00:00:41;

; Analysis & Synthesis ; 00:06:46 ; 1.0 ; 950 MB ; 00:06:35;

; Partition Merge ; 00:00:34 ; 1.0 ; 283 MB ; 00:00:31;

; Fitter ; 00:24:37 ; 1.5 ; 933 MB ; 00:29:27;

; Assembler ; 00:00:18 ; 1.0 ; 517 MB ; 00:00:18;

; TimeQuest Timing Analyzer ; 00:02:24 ; 1.1 ; 611 MB ; 00:02:29;

; Design Assistant ; 00:01:50 ; 1.0 ; 478 MB ; 00:01:49;

; EDA Netlist Writer ; 00:00:42 ; 1.0 ; 479 MB ; 00:00:41;

; Total ; 01:32:42 ; -- ; -- ; 01:41:50;

In one word, 8.1 is quite faster in Analysis and Synthesis but slower in fitter. Also 8.1 uses much less memory in Analysis and Synthesis.

It would be interesting to know what takes 9.0 so much time in Analysis and Synthesis.

Hua,

In Quartus II 9.0, some physical synthesis optimizations are carried out during the Analysis & Synthesis stage, and some are carried out during Fitter stage. So depending on physical synthesis options you have turned on, Analysis and Synthesis could take longer.

IIRC, when the physical synthesis effort level is set to Fast, physical synthesis optimizations are done only during Analysis & Synthesis. That might explain the increase in memory usage during this stage too.

Hi all,

thanks for the numbers, Hua. I agree with sw181, there are also many more options concerning the Synthesis step, so you can probably trim that time down, if the design allows this.

My comparison is both for full compilation and full hold time optimisation. And the "optimisation" is not for getting better positive values here, but rather something close to zero at all. I guess Q9.0 is trying much more aggressively to get a satisfying result, thus takes more time. I have to say that this is not working very well here, I get about the same results as with Q8.1 (that was much better than Q8.0).

I tried the clock gate conversion, it doesn't help much - we have all this stuff that breaks the conversion, even though I sometimes don't understand why. Maybe I should play with some constraints...

/emanuel

--- Quote Start ---

Hi all,

And the "optimisation" is not for getting better positive values here, but rather something close to zero at all.

/emanuel

--- Quote End ---

Just curious, how do you optimize the hold time toward zero?

BTW, my comparison was conducted on two copies of the same 8.1 project in two different directory. So they actually have the same configuration and constraints.