• State Resolved
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 105 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

DS160PR410: Regarding analysis using the IBIS-AMI model for the DS160PR410

shuhei hayashi
Intellectual 310 points

Part Number: DS160PR410
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: DS160PR810

Hi All,

The customer is performing analysis using the IBIS-AMI model for the DS160PR410 but was unable to generate an eye diagram.
The customer is considering using the DS160PR810 IBIS-AMI model to simulate the equalizer characteristics of the DS160PR410.
Is there any issue if the customer performs simulations using the DS160PR810 IBIS-AMI model instead of the DS160PR410 IBIS-AMI model?
We have reviewed the datasheet and believe there are no issues.
Would you kindly tell us your thoughts?

Best Regards,
Shuhei Hayashi,

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 43838 points

    Hi Hayashi-san,

    I expect DS160PR410 and DS160PR810 to have similar performance.

    Can you help clarify the issue with DS160PR10 IBIS-AMI model?  If customer is unable to generate an eye diagram, is this is simulation test bench or signal integrity issue?

    Thanks,

    Drew

  • 0 in reply to Drew Miller1
    Intellectual 310 points

    Hi Drew san,

    Thank you for your answer.
    I apologize for not providing enough details in my previous message.
    The customer loaded the DS160PR410 IBIS-AMI model into their simulation tools (ANSYS SIwave and HyperLynx), but they were unable to generate an eye diagram.
    On the other hand, when they loaded the DS160PR810 IBIS-AMI model into the same simulation environments, they were able to generate an eye diagram without any issues.
    Therefore, the customer is considering using the DS160PR810 IBIS-AMI model instead of the DS160PR410 IBIS-AMI model for their simulations and analysis.
    Although the actual device used in their design is the DS160PR410, could you please advise whether it would be acceptable to use the DS160PR810 IBIS-AMI model as a substitute for simulation purposes?
    Also, are there any known performance differences, modeling differences, or limitations that the customer should be aware of when using the DS160PR810 model to represent DS160PR410 behavior?

    Best Regards,
    Shuhei Hayashi,

  • 0 in reply to shuhei hayashi
    Intellectual 310 points

    Hi Drew san,

    Do you have any update regarding my questions?
    I'm sorry for pushing you.

    Would you kindly tell me these questions?

    Although the actual device used in their design is the DS160PR410, could you please advise whether it would be acceptable to use the DS160PR810 IBIS-AMI model as a substitute for simulation purposes?
    Also, are there any known performance differences, modeling differences, or limitations that the customer should be aware of when using the DS160PR810 model to represent DS160PR410 behavior?

    Best Regards,
    Shuhei Hayashi,

  • +1 in reply to shuhei hayashi
    TI__Mastermind 43838 points

    Hi Hayashi-san,

    Apologies for the delay.  Most of our models are validated in Keysight ADS.  Sometimes we do see challenges when customers use alternative simulation tools such as SIwave or Hyperlynx.

    In general, these models should are similar.  If customer cannot use DS160PR410 model, DS160PR810 model would be acceptable.

    For many of our models, we will have an example project.  The example project signal chain is typically the following:

    Example TX -> TX s-parameter model -> channel model -> device RX s-parameter model -> device IBIS-AMI model -> device TX s-parameter model -> channel model -> RX s-parameter model -> RX.

    Assuming a similar signal chain is used in DS160PR410 / DS160PR810 models, I would recommend swapping the DS160PR810 s-parameter package model with the DS160PR410 s-parameter package model.  

    Thanks,

    Drew