Setting The Record Straight

Since conducting the Verification Methodology Poll and publishing the raw results last week, I’ve been planning to follow up with a post that digs a little deeper into the numbers. Things have gotten rather busy in the meantime, both at work and with organizing the SaaS and Cloud Computing EDA Roundtable for next week at DVCon. So I’ve let it slip a little.

Well, I noticed today that the verification methodology poll was referenced in a Cadence blog post by Adam Sherer. The results were somewhat mis-interpreted (in my opinion), so that kicked my butt to post my own interpretations to set the record straight. Says Adam:

According to the poll conducted by Harry Gries in his Harry the ASIC Guy blog, you should go “all in” on the OVM because it is the 2:1 favorite.

In fact, the raw results had VMM with 80 users and OVM with 125 users, a ratio of just over 1.5:1 (1.5625 to be exact). So the 2:1 ratio is not accurate. However, if you add in RVM/Vera users to the VMM numbers, and then add in AVM, eRM, and e users to the OVM numbers, that ratio is more like 1.8:1. Closer, but still not 2:1.

It also indicates that my poll says that “you should go ‘all in’ on the OVM”. I never said that nor does the poll say anything about what you “should do”. The data simply captures what people are planning on using next. If you are inclined to follow the majority, then perhaps OVM is the way to go. By contrast, there is nothing in the poll comparing the technical merits of the various methodologies. So, if you are inclined to make up your own mind, then you have some work to do and my poll won’t help you on that. You’re probably better off visiting JL Gray at Cool Verification.

No poll is perfect and it will be interesting to compare to DVCon and John Cooley polls to see if they are consistent. Here are a few other interesting stats that I pulled out of the poll results:

  • 91% of respondents are using some sort of SystemVerilog methodology
  • 10% are using both OVM and VMM (although I suspect many of these are consultants)
  • 27% are still using e or Vera (more e than Vera)
  • 4% are using ONLY VHDL or Verilog (this number may be low due to the skew of respondents towards advanced methodologies)

Again, I welcome you to download the raw data, which you can find in PDF format and as an Excel workbook, and draw your own conclusions.

harry the ASIC guy

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Setting The Record Straight”

  1. Adam Sherer Says:

    Hi Harry,

    Thanks for leaving the same message on my blog. Your comments are live there as well.

    Just as you suggested, it is really interesting to download the raw data and draw your own conclusions. For example, if you look at all of the responses that indicate multiple language use, you’ll just over half (50.6024% or 126/249 to be exact) are using multiple languages. I found this by binding all of the SV/Vera use together as 1 language, binding e/eRM together, and then adding up the columns to find rows that sum to more than 1. Again, while its not a scientific study, multiple language architecture is one of the technical advantages of the OVM.

    As you’ve said, the survey is of current usage and it does not provide information on technical value. JL does blog on that and so do we (OVM 2.0, register package, and numerous “team specman” posts are quite technical), so we certainly agree that users should look deep to make their own independent decisions.

    =Adam Sherer, Cadence

  2. KarenB Says:

    IMHO, customers should look at capabilities and track record before selecting a methodology.

Leave a Reply