2021
DOI: 10.1109/mcas.2021.3071607
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

FPGA Architecture: Principles and Progression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
3

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
0
19
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A rather rough comparison between these two implementation approaches could be done as follows. According to [33], the fact that architectures built on FPGAs are, on average, 35 times larger and 4 times slower than those build on ASICs, these values can be converted to FPGA terms. However, the difference in the technology nodes (65 nm vs. 16 nm of the used FPGA) should be taken into account since there is a proportional increase in devices speed, according to the scaling factor.…”
Section: Board Implementation Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A rather rough comparison between these two implementation approaches could be done as follows. According to [33], the fact that architectures built on FPGAs are, on average, 35 times larger and 4 times slower than those build on ASICs, these values can be converted to FPGA terms. However, the difference in the technology nodes (65 nm vs. 16 nm of the used FPGA) should be taken into account since there is a proportional increase in devices speed, according to the scaling factor.…”
Section: Board Implementation Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In table 6 there is a comparison between our design and the author's work. 6 For the asic estimation values we used [8] [9]. Hardware is roughly 35 times smaller on ASIC and speed is 4 times faster.…”
Section: Section 4: Implementation and Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the development of novel FPGA architectures and CAD algorithms depends mainly on a versatile framework that consists of three main components: (1) a set of benchmarks written in a hardware description language or synthesized using high-level synthesis, (2) an architecture model that captures the organization of FPGA blocks and routing architecture as well as area/timing/power models from circuit-level implementations, and (3) a CAD flow that synthesizes the given benchmarks then implements them on a given FPGA architecture [7]. Although most research efforts in the FPGA community are focused on architecture and CAD, benchmarks actually play a crucial role in this flow.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%