Re[2]: IBIS as the accurate standard.

Text item:

To all,

I coulnd't agree more with Dileep's last sentence (below). The problem I see is
that a lot of people want to use IBIS models for the wrong reason. For example,
if you are a circuit designer working on your new buffer, you are much better
off using SPICE. However, even if you are a circuit desginer, but you are
concerned about the system behavior of your buffer, you might benefit from many
the features in IBIS (and/or behavioral) models.

Another observation. Many people automatically think that SPICE is inherently
more accurate than IBIS. This is a misbelief. Any model is only as good as the
data is in it. It is just as easy to make bad SPICE models as IBIS models. Yet
many tend to believe SPCIE more, just because it is SPICE. That is what bothers
me the most...

Arpad Muranyi
Intel Corporation
================================================================================

Kellee Crisafulli, HyperLynx Inc. wrote:

> There has been a number of emails of late about how accurate
> the IBIS models. I think some of this discussion really looses
> site of the FACTS.
>
> 1) No model is "accurate" for all uses especially SPICE models.
>

Where is the FACT in the above statement? It is more like an opinion
and everyone is entitled to have one. I do not see why SPICE
models should be ESPECIALLY less "accurate". Is it possible to
prove the above statement? I agree with the first half of the statement
that no model is accurate for all uses and both ibis and spice models
have that limitation.

I think it is possible to say good things about IBIS without
saying bad things about SPICE. Why should it always be necessary
to defend IBIS by bad mouthing SPICE? Both serve different but
useful purposes.

------------------------------------------------------------
Dileep Divekar
Applied Simulation Technology, Inc.
2188 Bering Drive
San Jose, CA 95131

Phone - (408)-434-0967 x 100
Fax - (408)-434-1003
Email - dileep@apsimtech.com
------------------------------------------------------------

Text item: External Message Header

The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.

***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.

X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Cc: dileep@contec.Apsimtech.COM
Subject: Re: IBIS as the accurate standard.
To: ibis@vhdl.org
Message-Id: <9610292237.AA19642@contec13.contec.COM>
From: dileep@contec.Apsimtech.COM (Dileep Divekar)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:37:35 +0800
Received: by contec13.contec.COM (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
     id AA19642; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:37:35 +0800
Received: from contec13.contec.COM by Apsimtech.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
     id AA26401; Tue, 29 Oct 96 14:28:47 PST
Received: from contec.UUCP by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
     id QAA18954; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:12:28 -0800
Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp12.netcom.com [163.179.3.12]) by vhdl.vh
dl.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA20798 for <ibis@vhdl.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 1996
 18:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vhdl.vhdl.org (vhdl.vhdl.org [198.31.14.3]) by mailbag.jf.intel.c
om (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA21591; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 18:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailbag.jf.intel.com (root@mailbag.jf.intel.com [134.134.248.4])
by relay.jf.intel.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA15879; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:
36:20 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: owner-ibis@vhdl.vhdl.org
Received on Wed Oct 30 08:55:55 1996