cadence vs tanner L-edit

run on the workstation, the cadence is the best
BUT, run on the PC, the Ledit is s strong tool

I have some question...how many of you use this 2 tools ?
why cadence is more better??
...................
my opinion
for industry we need the GDSII file and both of this tools do this (so no difference betwen this) , the rule file is more easy in L-edit , DRC is same for both but the time for this is more biger for both than calibre (I use calibre for DRC because for a full chip I need only 3-4 min ..with cadence will be 3-4 hours and with L-edit max 30 min ) ...so why is cadence so good ?..because is cadence offer this tools free for some university's and for some of you is a familiar tool ?....cadence offer a most complete tools for microelectronics design but that don't mean is the best .
in my opinion the best for DRC/LVS is Calibre , the powerfull simulator is Hspice and the best tool for layout is the tool who provide the file I need for factory and who offer a easy mode to draw my layout's at the smalest costs

i heard after cadence's virtuoso, laker is good layout edit tool.

for analog simulation HSPICE and SPECTRE and ELDO are almost the same
but hspice is the indusrty standard

RF simulation the @DS comes in the frist place , then spectre-rf then ELDO-rf
hspice-rf is a new tool i donot know much about it

and i agree with Sergiu_Q caliber is the best in DRC and LVS
but may i ask which is the best parasitic extractor ?

khouly

has anyone here tried RFDE?
it ADS in Cadence
I think this could be a very powerful simulation engine

anyone tried this?

i have tried it , it is great , and gives u the capabilty to simulate the inductors with momentum in cadence layout , which is great
and the Harmonic balance engine is great

khouly

I have some question...how many of you use this 2 tools ?
why cadence is more better??
----------------------
I am a layout guy, and I've worked with both L-Edit and Cadence. I personal think Cadence is a better tool, specially for DRC and LVS. Cadence's LVS debug program can point and zoom to the errors. In layout, I afraid the most a short from GND to power at the chip level, but with Cadence's debug program, I can find it less than 5 minutes. L-Edit can not do that. Hope this help.

Added after 6 seconds:

I have some question...how many of you use this 2 tools ?
why cadence is more better??
----------------------
I am a layout guy, and I've worked with both L-Edit and Cadence. I personal think Cadence is a better tool, specially for DRC and LVS. Cadence's LVS debug program can point and zoom to the errors. In layout, I afraid the most a short from GND to power at the chip level, but with Cadence's debug program, I can find it less than 5 minutes. L-Edit can not do that. Hope this help.

Lake is better than Virtuoso.

Cadence is better than Ledit.It has more features.

cadence is industry standard every one uses ...

of course cadence is useful and better,because it be supported by many professional!

I use cadence in my company and use calibra to run drc and lvs. It's my habit.

Humungus said:

However, Ledit is much cheaper than cadence, easier to be used, not bad at all for small medium analog design.

I use it extensively and I'm not dissapointed at all. Furthermore, you can import Virtuoso setup files, perform Dracula-compatible DRC and check your design with Calibre results.

Click to expand...

Hi, can you give me some guide how to import Virtuoso setup files, perform Dracula-compatible DRC and check my design with Calibre results using Tanner.
I have to move to Tanner after doing my work on 130nm tech in Cadence when my Cadence already expired and is not renewed by my university. So disappointing, but hopefully can continue my same work in Tanner. Please help me.
Thanks

The important question is, which one does your target foundry
supply a tapeout-approved PDK for? Any other consideration
has to be secondary (if you're serious about actually fabbing
something).

If you only want to play around then one tool is as good as
another. You could use LASI or Electric as far as that goes.
For free.

Hi, thanks for replying my question, I'm going to fabricate the IC with MOSIS using IBM PDK 130nm.My sv asked me to use Tanner instead of Cadence and Mentor Graphic, like I told u before that I've already have some of my design using Cadence.
I'm doing a digital design, and doing the layout manually before, so I have spend a lot of my time there.That's why I hope I can still use the design in Tanner

cadence is very cheap ,nobody can install it in hes pc

As a 20+ year user of Cadence tools, I am bemused by what seems to be a general acceptance that it is the best tool for IC design. In my opinion, it is not!

What it is, is an excellent tool for bringing together a cross-discipline design team.

For the individual tasks those teams have to do within their design flow and skill area, there are better tools out there to do those individual tasks (for example L-Edit, ICED, Magic, WinLASI, Calibre and quite a few others for layout depending on what you are trying to do).

My experience of the Cadence tools is that if you are lazy it is excellent as all you have to do is learn to be a "mouse pusher".

If you really want to be an engineer in the dictionary meaning of the word, you need to "look under the hood" to appreciate the compromises that are being made on your behalf in exchange for the higher level of abstraction at which Cadence force you to work. To do any real leading edge design (particularly analogue, RF or the real high speed digital stuff) you need to be able to work at a lower level of abstraction than Cadence offers.

I'd like to hear others opinions on non-cadence tools based on real use on products in production and in particular how they have solved problems that the cadence tools don't/can't.

SimonH.

Laker seem better. Its designers come from Cadence too.

I currently use L-Edit for course project. I haven't tried Cadence yet, but L-Edit is quiet easy to use. The only drawback I experience is the node highlighting is not easy to use..

if are going to spend money to fabricate a chip that will work then go for Cadence Spectre , otherwise any tool would be good. Tanner tools are baby tools. their LVS /Extraction / net-list import is rubbish. The T-Spice is accurate simulator comparable with spectre /Hspice. other tools will be useless if BSIM3 or leter models are used , the DC bias point will be oK , but AC , Transient results will be off by 10-30%. Convergence is best in Cadence Spectre.