Cadence's SigNoise has comprehensive modelling for frequency dependent lossy
transmission lines. The lossy parameters are input as frequency dependent
RLGC matrices. These RLGC's are generated by SigNoise's field solver or can
be input from other field solvers.
SigNoise's simulation is wide bandwidth to handle from no loss to heavy
losses because of our unique transmission line model.
Signoise also supports IBIS models, arbitrary spice models for packages and
connectors. In addition you can create advanced non linear device models
based on spice syntax.
Finally, SigNoise is tightly integrated with SPECCTRAQuest for exploration,
constraint management, floorplanning, design, implementation and verification.
Let me know if you'd like more details.
At 11:36 04/09/97 -0600, Chris Simon wrote:
>I am looking for a time domain lossy transmission line simulator for
>digital signals with bit rates of 1Gbit/sec and higher. I would like to
>get information on simulators that you have experince with.
>The simulator I'm looking for should include all of the following:
> 1. The results can be viewed in the time domain.
> 2. Transmission line models that include series resistance and
>inductance which are functions of frequency to ACCURATELY model skin
>effect. (i.e., a frequency dependent line model that is used to get time
>domain simulation results)
> 3. SPICE CMOS models and/or IBIS type non-linear models can be used
>as drivers and receivers
> 4. Arbitrary driver data patterns can be used (i.e., not limited to
>There is one other criteria, but I'm not certain that this one is required
>for signals with 150 to 200 pSec rise and fall times. Any opinions?
> 5. Includes the effect of dielectric losses.
>I am aware of several products that claim to meet these critria. Upon
>close inspection several of the lossy line models didn't really meet number
>2. This seems to be the tough one.
>I am going to take a detailed look at Microwave Design System (MDS) from
>Hewlett-Packard, although someone told me that the current version doesn't
>meet number 3 above.
>I would be interested in hearing which of the above criteria are met by
>other tools, or whether a future revision will incorporate these features.
>If you know how the following tools stack up, especially with regard to
>number 2, I would appreciate hearing from you.
>Quad Design, Quantic, Interconnectix/Mentor Graphics, Pacific Numerix,
>Cadence SigNoise, ApSim/Contec, EMC-workbench, others?