Dev Board with Artix UltraScale+

[Skylär Astaröt]

Good afternoon people, I'm studying MATLAB, and I need a development board based on the latest AMD Xilinx model, the Artix UltraScale+, any of its variants, AU10P or AU25P, they would launch some plate model for Introductory Boards / FPGA Boards?

Greetings.

[zygot]

Except for ZYNQ based UltraScale(+) devices there aren't many UltraScale(+) development boards available to choose from. I don't know if this is due to pricing or general availabliity, but the UltraScale family historically hasn't been much of an option for experimenters or small independent board vendors . It's possible that this could be the case for Artix UltraScale+ as well. There certainly has been an unusual time lapse from when hints of the Artix UltraScale+ were first made public and to when documentation and actual hardware was available. It's a curious thing.

One problem with UltraScale is that for anything but simple IOSTANDARD interfaces these devices are a lot more complicated to use for the HDL flow. On top of this, the tools are enforcing an abstraction of the actual hardware implementation not seen with older device families. The line between what the HDL designer controls and what the tools control is more blurred. And on top of that the IP is more likely to hide the details in encrypted sources. UltraScale IO with DDR or IOSERDES for UltraScale is more restrictive and less "general purpose" than it is for Seried 7 devices. Even something as simple as DDR is a lot more complicated for board designers and board users.

UltraScale has larger block memory, but it's restricted to 1 clock implementations, and thus has restricted utility.

If the IPI design flow works for you none of these considerations might be an issue. For most FPGA based product vendors, in my experience, IPI is not a feasible option.

There certainly are some advantages to UltraScale verses Series 7 but I'm not inclined to think of it as a positive evolutionary step the way that I've thought of Series 7 over previous families. Edited April 22, 2022 by zygot

[zygot]

Xilinx, .. er AMD/Xilinx as of this week has been strangely mum about the Artix UltraScale+. I suspect FAB availability issues. As far as I can tell Opal Kelly is the only board vendor claiming to have a board based on this family. Do your homework as their board tend to be small and limited in terms of power dissipation. But you can check out their website for information. The good news is that they support MATLAB. The bad news is that they don't provide basic information such as schematics, and users are tied to custom netlist based IP for basic connectivity. Still, their proprietary development system can be fairly quick for some projects once you get the hang of it.

I'd be surprised if Digilent doesn't have plans for some sort of Artix UltraScale+ board though I'm not privy to such information. They seem to be more open to selling 3rd party boards lately as opposed to developing their own. These are difficult times to be investing in such an enterprise.

Having said all of that I'm not sure that I understand your question. Edited April 20, 2022 by zygot

[Skylär Astaröt]

Thank you very much for your information Zygot, but given my interest, as long as the DSP48E works and the NetList is available, I can work without problems with MATLAB DSP HDL Toolbox, HDL Coder and HDL Verifier. I don't want interference, I don't need complications, just versatility and simplicity, to work as fast as possible.

The Versal Premium board is much better for me because it has everything I need to implement my projects in different ways, but I don't think I'm in a position to mortgage my apartment to get the Xilinx VPK120 Evaluation Kit.

I need something simple and fast, so that later I can scale up and have some luck to get into some technology project incubator, so for the moment I'm on my own.

[Richm]

Did you look at the available US+ dev boards?

I have a ZCU104, which is one of the cheapest Xilinx US+ boards. The chip ( XCZU7EV-2 ) is incredibly powerful with a good size FPGA and A53 and R5 processor clusters. It only costs a finger or two, not an arm & leg. The chip is the largest US+ part that doesn't require a license for Vivado. 

What I want, for no real reason, is a large Virtex ultrascale dev board, but I'm not a military contractor.

[zygot]

On 4/23/2022 at 12:44 AM, Skylär Astaröt said:

Thank you very much for your information Zygot, but given my interest, as long as the DSP48E works and the NetList is available, I can work without problems with MATLAB DSP HDL Toolbox, HDL Coder and HDL Verifier. I don't want interference, I don't need complications, just versatility and simplicity, to work as fast as possible.

Well, that's the trick, isn't it; identifying the platform and tools that support the requirements of a particular project goal. One problem with being dependent on a MATLAB design flow is that you are dependent on their support for any platform that you choose. ( MATLAB/FPGA tool integration may well have improved since the days when I used it. )

If I were you I'd avoid restricting my platform choice criteria to one FPGA vendor. Intel has been in the MATLAB design game longer than Xilinx and better support for OpenCL and such adventures. They also have the devices, if you have a thick wallet, and platforms that are similar to the Versal family. Intel wants to squeeze more money from its customers than Xilinx has traditionally, but in the end the investment in cost and effort probably isn't all that different than for a Xilinx based effort if you are targeting high-end FPGA devices and platforms. You aren't going to avoid paying for tools with a Versal project either. There's a lot of homework to do, and it's likely more complicated for someone used to the convenience of using MATLAB for FPGA development. Simplicity and convenience cost a lot of money... and often end up not getting you across the finish line due to limitations of what can be supported by such a framework.

If someone has a limited budget then they probably will have to scale their project goals to fit what is affordable. This is, of course, adds complications, and diminishes convenience and simplicity. It's always  possible to implement enough of a concept to demonstrate ( not prove ) that you have a path to a larger goal.

For someone who wants to get on with developing an idea without having to get mired in the details, I'd advise sticking with known platforms supported by MATLAB and used by other researchers in a particular field. This isn't likely to be the place to get such information, though perhaps you'll get lucky.

Edited April 26, 2022 by zygot

[asmi]

On 4/20/2022 at 11:41 AM, zygot said:

Xilinx, .. er AMD/Xilinx as of this week has been strangely mum about the Artix UltraScale+.

I'm not sure where did you get this info, just about a week ago or so I got an email from them saying these devices are now in production and suggesting to contact a sales rep if there is an interest. They've done a few webinars about these devices too. They did say during one of them that AU25P have a long lead time, but other devices should be more readily available.

Edited April 26, 2022 by asmi

[asmi]

On 4/18/2022 at 10:26 PM, Skylär Astaröt said:

Good afternoon people, I'm studying MATLAB, and I need a development board based on the latest AMD Xilinx model, the Artix UltraScale+, any of its variants, AU10P or AU25P, they would launch some plate model for Introductory Boards / FPGA Boards?

Greetings.

Right now there is only one devboard available, from Opal Kelly with AU25P device. I've sent them enquiry about acquiring some 10/15U devices to build a devboard for our internal evaluation, we'll see what they say, but I suspect with the semiconductor shortages it won't be easy, though if I would be them, I'd reserve a chunk of the first batch specifically for samples to get them out to the field to secure future volume orders.

[zygot]

On 4/23/2022 at 12:44 AM, Skylär Astaröt said:

as long as the DSP48E works and the NetList is available, I can work without problems with MATLAB DSP HDL Toolbox, HDL Coder and HDL Verifier

DSP48E isn't a complete specifier as there have been a lot of variations among the various families over the years that have seen significant changes to the operation and performance of the hard core. But, if absolute maximum performance isn't a criteria and you have a netlist for the device you are targeting you are correct.

[Skylär Astaröt]

Now that Digilent has deigned to launch a new product, I have an opportunity that I would like to take advantage of. The USB104 A7: Artix-7 FPGA Development Board with SYZYGY-compatible Expansion.

This board allows me to test it for the traininf of DOULOS Essential DSP Implementation Techniques for Xilinx FPGAs ONLINE, for the implementation they use an Artix series 7 DSP, the DSP48 It is what I want to focus on, it is a simple core and easy to understand, seeing the architecture diagram of the new Versal DSP it seems complicated and difficult to implement, Negate and pre-adder is added, also 58 bits Accumulate, more Wide 116-bits XOR in XOR22, XOR34, XOR58 and XOR116, and as if the new additions were not enough, it also has INT8 Vector Dot Product Mode!!

They will definitely have to teach me, I would learn it in a university course or career, specifically for this DSP58, although I would not do it from the beginning, but I can import DSP48 designs to the new Versal, very interesting.

Regarding the new Digilent board, I am interested in having the new Opal Kelly technology connection, the SYZYGY, I have seen it and it has the highest bandwidth, much more than the FMC+, this connector would allow me, for example, to add an AKM ADC 24 bits 96Khz module with balanced Combo XLR/Jack input, to test my design with a condenser microphone or Roland Fantom 07 Synth, I now have many possibilities with this new device. Thank you @JColvin 😄

What I would also like to know is the new Adept 2 control panel, is it complete? what are the differences with Opall Kelly Front Panel? Do I have the ability to use the Adept 2 API within MATLAB or Vivado?

I would like there to be a compatible enclosure for this USB104 A7, because I already found it on Ebay and I am asking for it as I write these lines, so you will already have more info about me.

[zygot]

In terms of maximum data bandwidth either LPC or HPC FMC beats SYZYGY by virtue of the availability of transceivers and shear number of IO available on the FMC connector. Both FMC and SYZYGY have a limited number of mezzanine cards or pods available. SYZYGY pods are generally cheaper, but are smaller. SYZYGY does provide for a transceiver pod type, but unlike FMC it's a separate pod from the standard pod. The Opal Kelly transceiver pods are geared toward the lower data rates of Artix devices.

I've not used the USB104 A7 platform, but it is an interesting non-ZYNQ possibility. Not a lot has been posted about this platform however. I would imagine that this platform could provide most of what you want in terms of PC connectivity and interfaces.. particularly if yo are prepared to design your own custom add-on card. Cost wise it appears to be a reasonable platform for anyone starting out in FPGA development. The fact is that any Series 7 or UltraScale platform lets you explore using the FPGA DSP functionality in any level of detail, from "simple" macro instantiation to the most abstract HDL usage.. if that's your main interest as your post suggests. One SYZYGY port is pretty limiting if you want to add interfaces like ADC/DAC etc. As far as I know there are no pods with both ADC and DAC functionality.

Opal Kelly uses a proprietary PC interface for configuration and PC connectivity ( not Digilent's go-to FTDI USB 2,.0 solution ) . This makes it incompatible with the ADEPT API. Their boards do usually include a JTAG header compatible with the ADEPT Windows Utility and Digilent JTAG cables but you will likely have to add a specific device ID code to the utility in order for it to recognize a device. This is a way to get around using Front Panel for both configuration and using VIO or ILA debugging, and I have done that when not needing the USB connectivity. Front Panel isn't integrated into Vivado Hardware Manager, so debugging isn't seamless. I've used the XEM7320 with the Digilent Zmods and found it to be quite superior to the Eclypse-A7 for the kinds of projects that I tend to do. The USB 3.0 interface is very nice. The Nexys Video and Genesys2 both deserve the higher bandwidth of USB 3.0. There is a lot to dislike about Opal Kelly's closed approach to products ( such as no schematics ) but they do integrate great PC connectivity via USB 3.0 to a variety of software frameworks which is, I suppose, their customer draw. It's certainly nice to be able to write a single PC executable in C that does both configuration and data transfers. But there aren't a lot of options as Opal Kelly only supplies encrypted netlists of the required components for doing that.

Intel FPGA programmable devices also have DSP functionality ( perhaps superior to the Xilinx ones ) and a pretty rich HSMC ecosystem. It is worth the time to explore as an alternative. Personally, I prefer the AMD/Xilinx world but frequently find myself using Intel world hardware and tools when they are a better fit for my purposes. Unfortunately, Intel has taken programmable logic toward a higher cost path in deference to low budget applications. The free tools are pretty much limited to Cyclone V and earlier. Cyclone 10 LP is pretty pointless but also supported.. to a limited extent by the free tools. Intel has always been committed to wrangling the most money out of customers as possible, even to the extent of losing customers.

If this is your first venture into FPGA development I'd advise against giving in to the urge of trying to find a cheap platform that will support your interests for years to come. This almost never works out. Better to start off as cheap as possible and then decide on specific project goals and buy the best platform that fits the goals. Edited May 30, 2022 by zygot