Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 11:24 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed for Thanksgiving Day


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Synopsys Inc. Message Board

  • goldenretrieverdog goldenretrieverdog Apr 7, 1998 4:58 PM Flag

    Where is the Growth Going to come from

    I have recently bought SNPS and have been a bit unhappy with its
    performance. I do still believe it to be a good long term investment.

    My questions are:

    Where is their new big growth area?

    What is the deal with AVANT and libraries? Can sone help me here....



    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hound-dog,

      I think Synopsys is going to do
      very well in spite of their poor showing on new
      products. I would not count on them starting from scratch
      to bring new products to market although. They will
      buy their way to success like cadence did.

      Your comments are right-on look at the Synopsys record
      on new internal products. vss, designtime, test
      compiler and formal verification are terrible. So what,
      they bought vcs, sunrise and motive. They can but
      others too.

      Synopsys will still do great because
      they have account control and lot's of money in the
      bank. This is how we did it at cadence.

      only possible sore spot is physical


    • Ok, I'll go back to my dog house and have a cold

      Sorry I misread your post. I am ultra-sensitive to SNPS
      marketing hype because I have to use their tools everyday.
      They have obviously done a good job with Design
      Complier but some of their other new tools leave a great
      deal to be desired. Test Compiler & the timing tools
      are bad at best and Formality is following in their
      footsteps. It does not do what the marketing guys

      I still have SNPS stock and will buy more as the VL
      and EPIC additions should boost the

      What are your thoughts on SNPS' new


    • The subject line clearly states that the post was
      from ESNUG, the
      E-mail Synopsys User's Group. Read
      it again. The post contained
      3 different people,
      Frank Rich a PR rep from Chrysalis, Craig
      Cochran a
      Synopsys product manager, and John Coolie editor/moderator
      of the user's group. I am none of the above.
      posted it because it was humorous and was relevant
      a few other posts regarding SNPS's formal
      verification tool and
      its competition.

      I'm sorry if
      it was not clear that the post was a cut and
      from elsewhere. I'm sorry that you didn't realize that
      a discussion of Formality and it competition is
      relevant to SNPS

      Now calm down, have a
      beer, it's Friday!

    • ASIC_Merc or Craig or whoever you

      Please leave your marketing hype to your own WEB site.
      Here are the facts:

      You saying that Formality
      does not use DC's compiler. You been hanging around
      with Bill Clinton too long.... Please at least be
      honest about it. You did not reinvent a new compiler
      mapper etc.

      Also, you claiming that .db is not a
      combinational data base. Please give me a break.

      this kind of stuff on the newsgroups. Lets talk about
      stock here.

      Also if this how you react to some
      piss ant startup, what will happend if CDN buys


    • Subject: (ESNUG 285 #6 286 #4) Formal
      Verification, Formality & Chrysalis

      > OK, John.
      What's your take on Formality's current capability? Is
      it the
      > usual 'trust us, we'll take care of
      the problems', or does the approach
      > Synopsys
      has taken -- same compiler for DC and Formality, use
      of .db file
      > to represent logic elements,
      switching DC versions to find differences, the
      > same
      mapper, parser, synthesizer, etc., etc.
      Are the comments above meaning to say: We'll work w/
      the tool, hacking away
      > until it does the job;
      because of the investment in Syn (dare to
      > that as a double entendre). If so, we're in the
      same boat, and should plan
      > on added time and
      cost in solving the verifications we
      > Or, should designers looking to Formality to
      chase arduous regression
      > simulations at the
      gate level consider it a reasonable alternative?
      > any user going to understand the risk in using
      Formality also going to be
      > working on real silicon?
      Or the issues he (and Chrysalis) raises
      significant enough to bother about? Some clear and conclusive
      > would be helpful!
      > - Frank J.
      > MRT

      From: Craig Cochran


      I was quite astonished to find
      this message from Frank Rich, planting
      falsehoods about Formality in ESNUG . Frank didn't
      himself, so allow me to identify him for you - he is the
      PR Representative
      for Chrysalis. It's not enough
      that Chrysalis is spreading outright lies
      Formality in advertisements and statements to customers -
      Their PR
      guy feels it's appropriate to use your
      user-oriented medium to covertly
      spread false marketing
      messages about his competition. I know this is not
      you intend people to use ESNUG.

      In any case,
      allow me clear things up for your readers. Formality is
      based on Design Compiler. It does not use the .db
      format to represent
      designs, it does recompile the
      design separately from Design Compiler using
      different version parser, and it DOES correctly verify
      0,1,X and Z states
      and check the sequential behavior
      of flip-flops. Formality is in use today
      at major
      customers and already has silicon success - and has
      Chrysalis in many accounts that have purchased it. Why?
      performance & capacity, excellent debugging capabilities and
      it is a much
      easier tool to use. If Chrysalis can
      only compete by spreading false
      statements, I think
      that makes a statement in and of itself.

      to put my marketing hat on in your user-oriented
      forum. We now
      return you to your regularly scheduled

      - Craig Cochran
      Product Manager - Formal
      Synopsys Inc.

      [ Editor's Note: It's my
      personal policy to not let *any* EDA sales or

      marketing people post anything on ESNUG other than purely
      replies to what users bring up. (i.e. ESNUG is
      meant for technical
      discussion and *user* opinions
      -- anyone can put techie stuff on ESNUG
      marketing hacks), but no sales pitches are allowed!) I
      for not

    • Rumor was that Ambit benchmarks gave snps a scare. DG kicked
      some ass and the result is in snps's 98.02 release of design

    • Ambit has been making tall claims for quite some time now. This start-up is headed by an ex-Synopsys VP. BTW, this guy still holds a substantial amount of SNPS stock. Check out the latest 10-K. If he really believed that AMBIT can kill Synopsys, why would he still want to hold on to SNPS stock? I don't know about you, but I distrust if someone is not putting their money where their mouth is.

    • Cadence has this type of technology also. they have been selling it as part of a consulting package.

      By the by, what are Chrysalis revenues?


    • I think I'll jump in to this as I've used both tools. The comment about Chrysalis being tough to use is true but on the other hand it finds differences that Synopsys misses. Synopsys product is very nicely packaged and easy to use so it is a good way to get your feet wet. I have my doubts that Synopsys will catch Chrysalis so they should just go buy them.

      Formal is getting close to the point of being able to replace gate sim. At a minimum you can simulate a whole lot less.


    • anybody hear of the start-up company, AMBIT? this company claims to leave SNPS in the dust as cheaps get smaller over the next few generations. appreciate any input

    • View More Messages
43.190.00(-0.01%)Nov 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.