In 2002 and 2004, Ron Collett International, Inc. conducted its well known ASIC\/IC functional verification studies, which provided invaluable insight into the state of the electronic industry and its trends in design and verification. However, after the 2004 study, no other industry studies were conducted, which left a void in identifying industry trends.<\/p>\n
To address this void, Mentor Graphics commissioned Far West Research to conduct an industry study on functional verification in the fall of 2007. Then in the fall of 2010, Mentor commissioned Wilson Research Group to conduct another functional verification study. Both of these studies were conducted as blind studies to avoid influencing the results. This means that the survey participants did not know that the study was commissioned by Mentor Graphics. In addition, to support trend analysis on the data, both studies followed the same format and questions (when possible) as the original 2002 and 2004 Collett studies.<\/p>\n
In the fall of 2012, Mentor Graphics commissioned Wilson Research Group again to conduct a new functional verification study. This study was also a blind study and follows the same format as the Collett, Far West Research, and previous Wilson Research Group studies. The 2012 Wilson Research Group study is one of the largest functional verification studies ever conducted. The overall confidence level of the study was calculated to be 95% with a margin of error of 4.05%.<\/p>\n
Unlike the previous Collett and Far West Research studies that were conducted only in North America, both the 2010 and 2012 Wilson Research Group studies were worldwide studies. The regions targeted were:<\/p>\n
- \n
- North America:Canada,United States<\/li>\n
- Europe\/Israel:Finland,France,Germany,Israel,Italy,Sweden,UK<\/li>\n
- Asia (minusIndia):China,Korea,Japan,Taiwan<\/li>\n
- India<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The survey results are compiled both globally and regionally for analysis.<\/p>\n
Another difference between the Wilson Research Group and previous industry studies is that both of the Wilson Research Group studies also included FPGA projects. Hence for the first time, we are able to present some emerging trends in the FPGA functional verification space.<\/p>\n
Figure\u00a01 shows the percentage makeup of survey participants by their job description. The\u00a0red bars represents the FPGA participants while the green bars represent the non-FPGA (i.e., IC\/ASIC) participants.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2013\/04\/Fig-0-1-520x390.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\nFigure 1: Survey participants job title description<\/strong><\/p>\n
Figure 2 shows the percentage makeup of survey participants by company type. Again, the red bars represents the FPGA participants while the green bars represents the non-FPGA (i.e., IC\/ASIC) participants.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2013\/04\/Fig-0-2-520x390.jpg\")
<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\nFigure 2: Survey participants company description<\/strong><\/p>\n
In a future set of blogs, over the course of the next few months, I plan to present the highlights from the 2012 Wilson Research Group study along with my analysis, comments, and obviously, opinions. A few interesting observations emerged from the study, which include:<\/p>\n
- \n
- FPGA projects are beginning to adopt advanced verification techniques due to increased design complexity.<\/li>\n
- The effort spent on verification is increasing.<\/li>\n
- The industry is converging on common processes driven by maturing industry standards.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
A few final comments concerning the 2012 Wilson Research Group Study.\u00a0 As I mentioned, the study was based on the original 2002 and 2004 Collett studies.\u00a0 To ensure consistency in terms of proper interpretation (or potential error related to mis-interpretation of the questions), we have avoided changing or modifying the questions over the years\u2014with the exception of questions that relate to shrinking geometries sizes and gate counts. One other exception relates\u00a0 introducing a few new questions related to verification techniques that were not a major concern ten\u00a0years ago (such as\u00a0low-power functional verification).\u00a0 Ensuring consistency in the line of questioning enables us to have high confidence in the trends that emerge over the years.<\/p>\n
Also, the method in which the study pools was created follows the same process as the original Collett studies.\u00a0 It is important to note that the data presented in this series of\u00a0blogs does not represent trends related to silicon volume (that is, a few projects could dominate in terms of the volume of manufactured silicon and not represent the broader industry).\u00a0\u00a0The data in this series of blogs represents trends related to the study pool\u2014which is a fair proxy for active design projects.<\/p>\n
My next blog presents current design trends that were identified by the survey. This will be followed by a set of blogs focused on the functional verification results.<\/p>\n
Also, to learn more about the 2012 Wilson Reserach Group study, view\u00a0my pre-recorded Functional Verification Study web-seminar<\/a>, which is located out on the Verification Academy website.<\/p>\n
Quick links to the 2012 Wilson Research Group Study results (so far\u2026)<\/h3>\n
- \n
- Part 1 \u2013 Design Trends<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part\u00a02 \u2013 Design Trends\u00a0(continued)<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part\u00a03 \u2013 Clocking and Power<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 4\u00a0\u2013 Design and Verification Reuse Trends<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 5 \u2013 Effort Spent in Verification<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 6 \u2013 Effort Spent in Verification (continued)<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 7\u00a0\u2013 Testbench Characteristics and Simulation Strategies<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 8\u00a0\u2013 Language and Library Trends<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 9\u00a0\u2013 Language and Library Trends (continued)<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 10\u00a0\u2013 Verification Techniques & Technologies Adoption Trends<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 11 – Verification Techniques & Technologies Adoption Trends (continued)<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 12 – Schedules, Respins, and Bug Classification<\/a><\/li>\n
- Epilogue <\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is the first in a series of blogs that presents the results from the 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":71592,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spanish_translation":"","french_translation":"","german_translation":"","italian_translation":"","polish_translation":"","japanese_translation":"","chinese_translation":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[326,350,493,504,506,528,718,732,751,787,820,827,831,833],"industry":[],"product":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-8228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-accellera","tag-assertion-based-verification","tag-formal-verification","tag-functional-coverage","tag-functional-verification","tag-ieee","tag-simulation","tag-standards","tag-systemverilog","tag-uvm","tag-verification-academy","tag-verification-methodology","tag-verilog","tag-vhdl"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/71592"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8228"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8228\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19749,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8228\/revisions\/19749"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8228"},{"taxonomy":"industry","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/industry?post=8228"},{"taxonomy":"product","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product?post=8228"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/verificationhorizons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- Part\u00a02 \u2013 Design Trends\u00a0(continued)<\/a><\/li>\n
- Part 1 \u2013 Design Trends<\/a><\/li>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.sw.siemens.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2013\/04\/Fig-0-1.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n