From: Muranyi, Arpad (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 17 2000 - 10:07:57 PST
I just want to comment on this, because in some cases such similar
typ., min., and max. IV curves are correct. There are buffers out
there which adjust themselves to a known quantity to eliminate most
of the process, voltage, temperature effects on the strength of the
buffers. The end result is a group of IV curves which are very close.
This adjustment circuit may even correct slew rate variations, leading
to very similar V-t curves also. So we can't jump to conclusions too
quickly seeing such IBIS models.
From: Kim Helliwell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : Bad IBIS models!
Bob Perlman wrote:
> Kim -
> <on-target criticism of vendor-supplied IBIS models deleted>
> Let me add one item to your things-that-drive-me-crazy list: IBIS
> models in which the min/typ/max data sets are virtually the same,
> leading me to believe that the vendor either (1) has unbelievably
> good process control or (2) has failed to factor in the effects of
> best/worst case process, and maybe voltage and temperature, too.
> And it's hardly ever (1).
Yes! As opposed to: min/typ/max values *exactly* the same, which
leads one to suppose they were too lazy to bother with the process
corners at all. Take one measurement and call it good for all,
I thought I would start something with this! :-)
-- Kim Helliwell Senior CAE Engineer Acuson Corporation Phone: 650 694 5030 FAX: 650 943 7260
**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to email@example.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu ****
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:35:42 PDT