Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 11:44 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Synopsys Inc. Message Board

  • market_observer market_observer Jan 28, 2000 11:32 PM Flag

    According to CDN financial report,

    Cadence has sold 300 licenses of Ambit, including
    40 during the last quarter. In addition they sold 11
    licenses of PKS. At $100K a pop for DC, 300 seats of DC
    amounts to $30,000,000. That's US. 11 Physical Compiler
    seats at 250K results in $2,750,000. It seems to me
    that Synopsys needs to start making money the
    old-fashioned way: good products sold by people with integrity.
    Tall order, isn't it.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Is that because sun adopt MENT's solution rather than CDN or SNPS?

    • Regarding the Ambit threat and NT: I hate to say
      this, but you are a full 100% wrong (not even
      99.99999999 but a full 100% wrong) on this. The NT port does
      not require rewrite in C++. The 3X improvements were
      due to algorithmic and architecture changes and had
      almost noting to do with the NT port. Although SNPS may
      have planned continous improvements, what suprised
      people (including Madhavan) was the ability to speed up
      3X on what was considered a relatively stable and
      mature tool, which normally means that there is not much
      scope for improvements. Again the point was that do not
      count SNPS R&D out.

      In general, porting is a
      task taken care of by porting specialists who have
      done this work before; they do not and NEED not
      understand synthesis at all. No software company will put
      their core technologist on a port; their time is just
      to valuable for that. Specially so in the EDA
      industry, and the synthesis market, where the NT port is
      largely symbolic; very few people actually run synthesis
      on NT.

      Cooley: He may be hand in glove with
      SNPS but that is the best we have right now. He is
      known to post negative stuff about SNPS too. With the
      absence of any other information I would trust his
      comments, since he gathers feedback from the user base. In
      the internet age any strong bias or misinformation
      can not last long; there are simply too many
      information resources availble.


      Regarding the
      endorsements: The issue was the stability and quality of PKS vs
      PC. As you yourself state Matrox engaged with PC for
      18 months, that is more than the time Ambit has had
      to work with Cadence tool. It somehow validates
      Cooley's statement about PC being 6 months ahead of PKS in
      terms of the state of the tool.

      AVNT and PKS: I
      did not understand what exactly you wanted to say.
      Essentially PKS is shutout from AVNT accounts due to
      political, support and flow issues. This provides PC
      "terra-firma", something to stand on while the PC vs PKS
      competition continues.

    • That's all. The bloodbath in SNPS today was way unjustified, particularly since SNPS has strong buys from the analysts. People will be loading back up, so should see big upswing tomorrow.

    • ...is CDN and SNPS down 10%+ and MENT is up 10%+ ... what is going on people? yes, I am MENT long...

    • 1."nVidia may be a Synopsys pal. But what about
      Matrox endorsement?"
      Matrox had engaged with SNPS for
      over 18 months prior to the announcement - long before
      PKS. In fact, Matrox did not benchmark PhysOpt (no
      Physical Compiler) against anything else (PKS or Magma).
      So their investment in the technology, and
      subsequent PR announcement, is meaningless.

      2. "SNPS
      released a new version of Design Compiler which was three
      times as fast the previous one."
      Yes, SNPS came out
      with a quick release of DC after what appears to be
      the Ambit threat. What outsiders don't know is that
      SNPS was already engaged with a major personal
      computer manufacturer to port DC to WinNT. This meant that
      old DC code had to be re-coded to C++. This was many
      months prior to Ambit's threat. The release of DC with
      3X improvement was a result of the portation to C++
      - NOT a response to Ambit. SNPS benefitted from the
      timing nonetheless.

      3. Cooley is a paid
      "employee" of SNPS. His comments are worthless (see my
      original post).

      4. "AVNT customer cannot even
      engage in PKS evals."
      AVNT can't even support their
      own Jupiter evals, never mind getting included into a
      PKS or PC benchmarks. Thay have no AE's that know
      synthesis. The good AEs get gobbled up by competitors after
      they realize that they can get MBOs/bonus at any other
      EDA company. So, AVNT has to home grow their own
      synthesis AEs. How can they compete against the SNPS AE who
      has 7-10 years experience? NOT.

      5. "Cadence
      strategy is to screw the whole industry"
      I couldn't
      agree with you more on this one.

    • Yes, it can go lower - Q4/99 results are not published so far...be prepare for a $3x
      But, by the end of the year, it will surely go up again.

    • Now I wish I had dumped my whole position in SNPS last Friday! It cannot go much lower today, can it?

    • >1.nVidia may be a Synopsys pal....
      Its
      still too early to tell anything about the PC vs. PKS
      battle. Both CDN and SNPS have internal test cases and
      know which types of designs will work for its product.
      One real customer doesn't make any difference at this
      point.

      >2. True, its a very close battle for logic
      synthesis. But your info is wrong: Madhavan had already been
      booted way before the Ambit synthesis tool was
      released.

      >3. Cooley has no objective credibility anymore.
      There have been strong reports about PKS in beta stage.
      Also, check out the Mitsubishi press release last
      week.

      >4. I agree with you on this one (for
      now).

      >5. CDN's drop in synthesis prices was intended to do
      damage to SNPS margins, and to take the focus off of
      low-end logic synthesis and onto physical synthesis (they
      should have waited until PKS was ready - marketing
      screw-up here). Notice that since the price drop, CDN's
      market valuation has resurpassed that of SNPS. So far,
      CDN's strategy has worked. Lower valuations makes those
      place&route acquisitions a little tougher, no?

    • Good post!
      Very good/realistic picture of the EDA market!

    • 1.nVidia may be a Synopsys pal. But what about
      Matrox endorsement? Both these companies are in the
      fore-front of designing multi-million high performance
      ASICS; perhaps the toughest designs in the business.
      Sure they would have some reason to put their eggs in
      the PC basket.

      2. About the Synopsys culture:
      When Ambit came out with their new tool (simpler to
      use and faster, with competitive QOR), SNPS released
      a new version of DesignCompiler which was three
      times as fast the previous one. Madhavan(Ambit's
      orignal CEO and currently Magma's CEO) himself
      acknowledged the surprise which Ambit folks had about
      Synopsys' ability to turn around so fast and suppress the
      threat to their market share. So do not bet on them
      giving up their share of the market.

      3. Cooley's
      article about PKS being 6 months behind PC: Cadence
      bought Ambit about an year and a half ago. Given all the
      distractions which follow a cash merger (Read developers busy
      buying their new houses and cars with their millions)
      and the turmoil within the Cadence organization, I am
      not surprised at the statement. Integrating two
      different tools and flows into a reliable and effecient
      solution does require a signficant engineering effort and
      validation. On the other hand Synopsys has been working on
      their Physical products for a number of year and is
      bound to have some engineering lead. The six month
      estimate is possibly on the more conservative side. That
      is why we have not seen a single customer
      endorsement in terms of tape-out or flow documentation
      inspite of the Cadence spin machine working over time on
      killing Synopsys' cash-cow (latest from the earnings
      release " ..11 new orders..."; no mention of number of
      customers, number of seats and the actual sale price or
      revenue (perhaps they paid the customers with free
      licenses for other tools to try PKS!! (just
      kidding)).

      4. AVNT factor: Presently AVNT customer cannot even
      engage in PKS evals.(read somewhere, but expected since
      PKS is supposedly tied to Cadence phsyical design
      tools). Unless PC screws up big time, Synopsys has a
      virtual hold on these accounts. This itself provides
      enough momentum to sustain PC vs PKS in the
      market.

      5. Realities of the newly forming market: The
      reality is that Cadence is bent on giving their tools
      free whever they are unable to compete on quality
      (Ambit, new simulator price cuts etc.). This screws up
      the entire EDA industry; many semiconductor companies
      have higher EDA budgets then they are actually
      spending. Wonder why? Because they feel that tools out
      there are not adding the value they need. Cadence
      strategy of price cutting ensures that the resources
      needed for developing new tools which can add real value
      and initiate extensive re-tooling in semi-companies
      are not coming out at the pace at which they possibly
      could. Cadence strategy is to screw the whole industry,
      just look at the valuation of EDA vs the rest of the
      market (even S&P 500 has higher P/E, I do not even want
      to talk about the Nasdaq 100).

    • View More Messages
 
SNPS
39.085+0.145(+0.37%)Jul 22 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
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.