Dear Hussein,

We use Xilinix. It is programmed using VHDL and there is a complete software suit from Xilinix to build the the VHDL code on one of the available FPGA chips.

Xilinix always develops new advanced generations from Its FPGA chips. It also introduce software and hard ware support digital system design on FPGA. There are powerful development kits for prototyping the designs.

There are also the cores which are the digital processing functions such as the FFT and IFFT and much more. You can see the details in the site of Xilinix.

Our Application is the electronics for communications where we implement the physical layer standards of the communication systems.

Best wishes

Dear Abdelhalim Zekry ,

Thanks for your valuable input. I am using Xilinx Spartan 6, and programming in VHDL at ISE platform. Can you please provide me some material, documents or source code for implementing a controller transfer function (say PID controller) in VHDL.

Regards:

Varun Chitransh

Dear Mr. Abdelhalim abdelnaby Zekry and Mr. Varun Chitransh ,

thanks for your comments, they tell a lot about Xilinx and I really prefer this company due to its noticeable progress and the huge amount of facilities throw their softwares and devices.

I use Arty A7, Spartan 6Lx45 and Spartan3e500k.

I also use Cyclone V Soc from Altera,

Much appreciated,

Regards.

Dear Hussein,

We use Xilinix, it is better than Altera.

Dear Hussein,

For tasks which need to be solved fast: dsp module, interface converter etc., fore more useful Timing Analysis and for regular developments - Altera is prefered since it's more friendly GUI

But for transcievers, maybe even SoCs or for special tasks (e.g. Altera has no extra protected fpga for space) Xilinx is prefered

Dear Mr. Daniil Smirnov

Xilinx has much more tools and design environments especially after adding the SDx package for software engineers, and the design flow is very smooth.

Thanks for sharing your opinion,

Regards.

Me personally I prefer Xilinx and I'm using Verilog with both ISE and Vivado. I find it easy to use and with cheap enough boards. Initially I started with Xilinx and I have some experience with it. But I think Altera (now Intel) is not any worse in functionality. Both companies offer free software including free IP cores for most of their devices. These are the best manufacturers in the world so you will not make any mistake no matter which one you will choose.

If you are seeking for some cheap and open-source alternative you may check: https://tinyfpga.com/

Khalid Al-Hussaini - what are the pro's and con's when you say simply "better"?

Deae Yassen,

If you study the architectures of the Altera and Xilinx chips, you will probably find Altera chips more interesting and more amenable to subtle optimizations. Xilinx tends to be more technology-oriented and have better links to applications by offering more chips with custom circuits that implement specific functions.

If it is a question of choosing, it can be something very subjective. However, when you learn to work with either of the two, it is easy to adapt to the products of the other company. Both are leading companies in the market. I started with Altera, then I was getting used to Xilinx. At that time Intel acquired Altera, and I considered that from that moment it was necessary to be aware of the developments of the two companies.

What FPGA company do you prefer?

The two companies have very good tools and development systems.

I prefer to work with both, taking into account that for Xilinx and Intel (Altera) I can find:

1. Continuous technological advance and development of tools

2. Heterogeneous architectures (SoC, SoM)

3. High level synthesis tools (Vivado HLS, Vivado SDx, Arm DS-5 Development Studio for Intel SoC FPGA Devices, Intel® FPGA SDK For OpenCL)

What are you using any of them for?

1. DSP and Image/Video processing

2. Machine learning (CNN)

3. Scientific computing

What suggestions you can offer to improve any of them?

Improve them in what sense?

Regards

Mr. Luis Castano-Londono ,

Your answer was superb, thank you very much for sharing your experience about FPGAs and I myself too use both of their devices.

have a good day

best regards.

Dear Hussein Al-Rikabi ,

If you mean HLS -featuer, then yes, Altera is far from that

But since we are talking about FPGA, hardware should take first, so in hardware Altera is really good.

It's like to ask what better - cat or dog, or what's better - VHDL or Verilog

If you are doing research, particularly with Partial Reconfiguration (PR), I prefer to work with Xilinx FPGAs, since they have documentation that allows you develop you own solutions around PR. More than 90% of research papers work with Xilinx FPGAs, and in PR, I would say nearly 100% comes from researchers working with Xilinx FPGAs. Unfortunately, Altera (now Intel) never published technical documentation around PR, such as how bitstreams are built (sequence of commands, bits to program LUTs, Flio-Flops, BRAMs, etc.). Altera software GUI is easier to work with, compared to Xilinx ISE. Xilinx Vivado is pretty much elaborated GUI, for more experienced people.

of-course Xilinx.

I worked on both Xilinx and Altera. Personally, I don't have any preference. If you can elaborate on what aspects you want to make comparison, they I can provide much insight.

Regards,

Dr. KC

Xilinx is widely used in both industries and academics.Intel erstwhile Altera are especially meant for academicians,at whole Xilinx are ahead of Altera...

Xilinx

Altera

Altera

I prefer Xilinx like most of the people. However, Quartus seems more friendly to me.

I'm working with Xilinx but I would like to try Altera.