Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: johnbeetem
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Last Updated Last Updated:
  • Views 6173 views
  • Likes 0 likes
  • Comments 35 comments
Related
Recommended

Not-as-expensive FPGA Boards

I haven't done a poll in a while so I thought it would be fun and instructive to do one about less-expensive FPGA boards.  One of the challenges of getting into FPGA design is that the boards are usually a lot more expensive than a Raspberry Pi or a microcontroller board from ST, NXP, or TI.  This may prevent people from giving FPGAs a try, which in turn makes the boards more expensive since they're manufactured in smaller quantities.

 

Still, if you look around there are some nice boards under US$100 and even under US$50.  I highly recommend Joel Williams' list of Cheap FPGA Development Boards.

 

Here are some boards available for US$50 or less that seem particularly interesting.  I've used the Papilio One and iCEstick myself.

 

  • Gadget Factory Papilio One 250K: This is one of my favorite boards and IMO a very good value at US$38.  It has a Xilinx Spartan-3E 250K, 48 I/Os on headers, and a JTAG programmer.  It's currently out of stock, but you get its "big brother" with a 500K part for US$65.

  • Generic Cyclone II board: Two years ago Michael Kellett wrote a nice 'blog about a US$15 Altera Cyclone II board available from Chinese distributor AliExpress.  It's an impressive board, except that it doesn't come with a programmer.  Michael was able to get a bundle with a programmer for just under US$50.

  • Lattice iCEstick:  At US$22 from some vendors, this is the least expensive FPGA board I know of that includes a programmer.  It has a Lattice iCE40 1K LUT FPGA, which is a small FPGA -- maybe a fifth the capacity of Papilio One 250K.   On the other hand, iCE40 is the only FPGA that has a fully open-source tool chain.

 

  • Numato Labs Mimas: At US$35, Numato's Mimas is the cheapest Spartan 6 LX9 board I've seen with a programmer.  It has a lots of I/O on headers, along with some LEDs and push-buttons.  Numato is based in India, so I don't know what shipping is like.  Numato also has Mimas V2 for US$50, which adds 64MB DDR SDRAM, VGA connector, and 3-digit 7-segment display but much less general-purpose I/O than Mimas.  And they also have the US$30 Elbert V2 with a 50K Xilinx Spartan 3A and I/O similar to Mimas V2.

 

  • Scarab Hardware miniSpartan3 is a small Xilinx Spartan 3A board with a 50K or 200K part for $30 or $40, including an on-board programmer.  I've never dealt with Scarab personally.  The miniSpartan3 is a nice size to incorporate into other projects and has lots of general-purpose I/O.

 

So which one do you like best?  Or is there another not-as-expensive FPGA board you prefer?  If you have experience with any of these boards or vendors, please comment.

  • in reply to michaelkellett

    looking at the profile of the Gnarlygrey site owner on linkedin, i suppose it's more about a "Lattice insider" with  a subsidized design run as a pet project..

     

    BTW mouser tells me this FPGA is a new product with 770 on stock..  (sorry in advance if this link is not appropriate here, just for the reply to above statement on availability..)

     

    i can afford the odds, let's see how it fares..

  • in reply to aventuri

    it's only $7.99 but beware of scam.

     

    The chip it uses is currently unobtainable (zero stock everywhere and we couldn't get  a ship date from anyone either)

     

    It is possible that this company has  a special deal but they don't look very professional - payment seems to be by sending money via PayPal to Grant Jenning's personal PayPal account.

     

    MK

  • i suppose i have a winner here! :-)

    i've just found this Upduino board, a Lattice iCE40 based design for less then 8$ shipping included!! tell me about cheapness..

    BTW it looks like an Ultra Plus version of Lattice FPGA with ~5K LUT  and boasting 8 MAC/DSP cores, 1Mbit of added RAM, I2C HW cores. it's a beefy IC (with respect to Lattice lineup, of course..)

     

    it's also promoted by Lattice Semi itself..  that's a kind of an endorsement!

     

    two downsides:

    * you need to stick with icecube2 for design, as it's still one of the few iCE40 devices still not supported by the free toolchain arachne-pnr/icestorm..

    * there's no programmer on board and so need a Raspi or similar SBC with SPI port.. a bit cumbersome..

     

    bests

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    Hi John,

     

    I agree.

     

    When I began programming the PDP-11, it was in machine language.

    When I learned electronics, it was tube design followed by and introduction into transistors.

     

    After that, learning integrated circuits, microprocessors, bit slice devices, higher level languages, operating systems and the rest were on the job training.

     

    What helped me was that early hands on working with actual bits and bytes coupled with logic mathematics and circuit design.

     

    Starting from the bottom up, you get used to working with the details, focusing on each wire connection, output loads, timing issues and all of the coordination needed between the hardware and the software.  Which is why I majored in Computer Engineering and not Computer Science.  The power of the computer was dependent upon knowing how to get the software to interact with the real world.

     

    As you said, getting started and persisting with your learning is key.

     

    Pick a FPGA device family, learn the tools, study a lot, play a lot, and learn how to exploit the devices.

     

    If you become proficient, you achieve a level of capability needed to fully exploit the technology.

     

    But it takes time and effort.  There are no free lunches involved with FPGA devices.  If you do not take the time to learn how to use them, then you will regret it.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    Hi John,

     

    I appreciate that.

     

    FPGA development reminds me of the wild early days of microprocessor.  There were many of them with many types of support tools.

     

    To keep yourself sane, you picked one device family and its development tools and took the time to become proficient.  Usually this was a multiyear commitment.

     

    As for Fortran, I have not touched it in decades.

     

    I can usually use Microsoft Excel to do many of the formula issues I used Fortran for.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to Jan Cumps

    Hi Jan.

     

    Good point.

     

    I forget that I spent a lot of years working in the basic electronics and software area while these devices evolved.

     

    So my knowledge of the basics does indeed exceed that of many of the more basic makers.

     

    I think all of these issues just helps point out that you embark on FPGA devices only if you have the desire to learn a lot of detailed circuit design capabilities.

     

    These are typically not just pick up and play with devices.  It takes good disciplined circuit design and development skills to fully understand how to exploit their features.

     

    Just my opinion.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    johnbeetem wrote:

     

     

    I think the main challenge is to get people started. When learning any new topic there's a spark of interest, which comes from seeing or reading about something cool. If you can quickly make progress that spark grows into a flame, and then a blaze. If it's hard to get started, the spark goes out, usually permanently. The window varies a lot between individuals, and depends highly on what an individual thinks is "fun".

    I once saw a terrific juggler who was performing for children, including my daughters.  He said something very profound regarding education in general and juggling in particular.  He said: "Kids, if you want to learn to juggle, don't start with eggs.  Start with silk handkerchiefs because then you're juggling in slow motion."

     

    This is true of learning so many things: start with a simplified version to master the fundamentals, and then add complexity gradually as your knowledge and skills deepen.

  • in reply to Jan Cumps

    DAB wrote:

    I think most of us understand the basics...

     

    Jan Cumps wrote:

    Don, I'm going to challenge that statement. I'm making the bold claim here that the toolchain is not the part that makes the learning curve steep.

    I think that it's the prerequisite to understand digital design knowledge - and as a second topic: understanding timing and delays.

    It's an uncommon skill for someone that didn't get a formal training (unlike programming - it's easier for hobbyists to pick that up because you can walk the steps of a program almost one by one).

    AND, OR, NOT gates and the likes are usually still graspable. Flip-flops can be learned in a good day.

    But then, understanding the more complex circuits based on these are often a challenge, let alone building a reasonable design based on these blocks.

    "Logic!  Why don't they teach logic in these schools?" complains the Old Professor in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.  I read somewhere that Lewis Carroll wrote his famous book Symbolic Logic because he discovered his undergraduates didn't understand the basics of logic, something they should have learned when they were 11 years old.

     

    I'm largely self-taught, and owe it to my mother who bought me a copy of Wff 'n Proof, now known as "the grandfather of educational games".  It was probably suggested to her by a well-meaning sales clerk and she probably bought it out of ignorance.  As a game it was a wash-out because there was nobody to play it with, but I devoured the instruction/text book and learned the basics of symbolic logic.  I found Lewis Carroll's book at the public library, along with various vintage logic and computer design books.  My first logic circuits were relay logic for my electric trains (done before reading any logic books) followed by discrete resistor-transistor logic copied from the GE Transistor Handbook, another great resource from the library.  You cannot imagine my delight when 7400-series logic came out and I could buy little insect-like packages that meant I didn't have to wire up transistors any more.  Geek heaven!

     

    Today it's much easier and at the same time much harder.  It's much easier because you can pick up something like a Lattice iCEstick for the cost of a restaurant dinner, but harder because of the complexity of installing and learning how to use tools.  It's much more intuitive to wire up a few transistors and resistors, just like it's easier to toggle in a small PDP-11 machine language program through the front panel switches than to learn to use the assembler and linker.  You're very limited in what you can practically do, but it's an easy start.

     

    I think the main challenge is to get people started.  When learning any new topic there's a spark of interest, which comes from seeing or reading about something cool.  If you can quickly make progress that spark grows into a flame, and then a blaze.  If it's hard to get started, the spark goes out, usually permanently.  The window varies a lot between individuals, and depends highly on what an individual thinks is "fun".

  • in reply to DAB

    DAB wrote:

     

    Hi John,

     

    I would really like to see you do a sort of usability chart of the various software used to program the FPGA devices.

     

    Thank you for the suggestion, but that's quite a difficult task because of YMMV.  It's particularly hard for me, because I've been using Xilinx tools for nearly 20 years so stuff that has become easy for me with practice is non-intuitive for the new user.  I think Lucie did a terrific job with her DEO-NANO series.  You're only a new user once, and sharing that experience is gold for people like me who are trying to build tools and systems suitable for new users.

     

    Personally, I think my Flavia is a great tool for learning about FPGAs, but it has lots of limitations and some people object its use of a hardware description language that's not VHDL or Verilog.  Maybe they think everyone should program in Fortran image  Again, YMMV.

  • in reply to DAB

    DAB wrote:

     

    ....

    I think most of us understand the basics,

    ....

    Don, I'm going to challenge that statement. I'm making the bold claim here that the toolchain is not the part that makes the learning curve steep.

    I think that it's the prerequisite to understand digital design knowledge - and as a second topic: understanding timing and delays.

    It's an uncommon skill for someone that didn't get a formal training (unlike programming - it's easier for hobbyists to pick that up because you can walk the steps of a program almost one by one).

    AND, OR, NOT gates and the likes are usually still graspable. Flip-flops can be learned in a good day.

    But then, understanding the more complex circuits based on these are often a challenge, let alone building a reasonable design based on these blocks.