How to choose the best chainsaw to cut a loaf of bread?

By Sajeda Tamimi

Every morning, thousands of people stand in their kitchen trying to decide on the best chainsaw that can precisely cut their food.

Well, not really. But in the world of high-speed PCB design, this is a sad reality. Many teams, when they hit the real complexity wall, think: okay, it’s time for a chainsaw. Okay, hold on.. not quite yet!

Here is the truth that you need to hear: In PCB simulation, overkill is the ultimate bottleneck. You think that running a 3D solver on your board should close the inaccuracy gap, while, in reality, it opens a productivity gap.

If you are an expert in this field, you know how true this is. For “point tools” that live outside the PBC layout environment, teams spend an average of 21 hours per week on “non-value-added” tasks. This is a well-documented industry average for these standalone tools, and it’s a painful number! Modern research from the Aberdeen Group (2022) confirms that engineers using these standalone point tools today spend over half their time on manual data entry, CAD cleanup, and meshing [1].

Now, you must be thinking, is there a way to avoid that?
To answer that question, let’s look at the HyperLynx Advanced Solvers and how they allow teams to work smarter, not harder:

Solver Type	Dimension	Mechanism	Best Use Case
Quasi-Static (Fast 3D)	2D / 2.5D	RLGC Extraction	Trace impedance & uniform transmission lines.
Hybrid	2.5D+3D	Cut-and-Stitch	Full-system sign-off (DDRx, standard SerDes)
Full-Wave	3D	Maxwell’s Equations	Complex 3D structures & ultra-high-speed sign channels above 56Gbps

1. HyperLynx Quasi-Static Solver (2D / 2.5D)

HyperLynx Fast 3D (Quasi-Static) methods solve the network at a single frequency point, they run faster and can handle larger structures than their full-wave counterparts. By solving for cross-sectional fields, these solvers extract parasitic RLCG values using quasi-static Maxwell formulations. This approach is highly efficient because it neglects wave propagation entirely, making them faster and less resource intensive. It is ideal for uniform interconnects where the geometrical dimensions are small relative to the wavelength.” These solvers lose accuracy once the structure’s size exceeds one-tenth of the signal’s wavelength (L>λ/10).

2. HyperLynx Hybrid Solver (2.5D + 3D “Cut-and-Stitch”)

The hybrid solver uses a divide and conquer approach: It automatically decomposes designs into traces, planes, and vias to allow for the simulation of large-scale systems (like full-board DDR5) that would be computationally prohibitive for full-wave 3D solvers, and stitches in 3D full-wave models for complex vertical transitions. By utilizing a “Cut-and-Stitch” hybrid approach, HyperLynx Hybrid Solver chooses the right solving technique on its own, which provides the same Maxwell-accurate, full-wave 3D physics for critical transitions at the fraction of resources and time.

3. HyperLynx Full-Wave Solver (3D FWS)

HyperLynx FWS uses accelerated Boundary Element Method (BEM) methodology to solve the complete set of 3D Maxwell’s equations in their full 3D form. It leverages the Method of Moments (MoM) to solve those boundary equations and provide Predictive Meshing. This ensures correlated accuracy on the first solve, eliminating the need for a repetitive ‘solve-refine-solve’ bottleneck.

It makes zero assumptions about field’s direction or geometry. It meshes only the surfaces and avoids numerical noise. Compared to FEM based methods, it does not require a volumetric mesh, which saves time and resources in the process.

At high frequencies, electricity doesn’t travel through the middle of a copper trace, it travels on the surface, which is called the “skin effect”. So, a solver that meshes the surface (BEM) is mathematically aligned with the actual physics.

HyperLynx runs at fraction of the time

So, now that you know that we don’t really need to run to the shed and get an overkill tool to solve the issue at hand, are you curious to know why HyperLynx runs at fraction of the time needed by those traditional point tools?

In HyperLynx, you just import your design to the tool once with a click of a button. From the same GUI you can decide the simulation type you want to run. The automatic extraction is the bridge between your PCB layout and the advanced solver. No manually drawing boxes, cutting traces, and cleaning up the CAD. In HyperLynx, the software does this for you, automatically.

To put this into perspective (HyperLynx vs competitive tools):

Manual CAD Cleanup –> From hours to seconds (100% reduction in manual labor).
Port Assignment –> from 30+ minutes to near-instant (99% reduction).
Stackup Mapping –> Reduced from 15 minutes to 0 (100% reduction).
Total Setup –>A process that takes about 3 hours in a point tool takes less than 5 minutes in HyperLynx.

Calculation: (180 mins−5 mins)/180 mins=97.2% reduction.

In the race to hit market windows for PCIe Gen 6, DDR5, or 800G Ethernet, the “Inaccuracy Gap” is no longer the risk. We have reached a point where the mathematical difference between a smart” hybrid solver and a full wave 3D solver is often less than the margin of error in the manufacturing process itself.

Industry benchmarks and Siemens internal correlation studies consistently show that hybrid simulation workflows (like those in HyperLynx) achieve more than a 95% reduction in model preparation time while maintaining high-fidelity correlation to full-wave 3D EM solvers for standard PCB interconnects. [2]