2005
DOI: 10.1007/11572961_35
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

FPGAs for Improved Energy Efficiency in Processor Based Systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These devices were chosen as rapid prototyping platforms both because of their low cost compared to a custom ASIC and because at lower sampling rates an FPGA or CPLD can consume less power than an equivalent processor-based implementation [23]. Furthermore the relatively low sampling rates associated with ENG, typically less than 100 kS/s, may allow a reduction in core operating voltages and thus a saving in static power consumption in an FPGA [24].…”
Section: Power and Area Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These devices were chosen as rapid prototyping platforms both because of their low cost compared to a custom ASIC and because at lower sampling rates an FPGA or CPLD can consume less power than an equivalent processor-based implementation [23]. Furthermore the relatively low sampling rates associated with ENG, typically less than 100 kS/s, may allow a reduction in core operating voltages and thus a saving in static power consumption in an FPGA [24].…”
Section: Power and Area Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, implementing algorithms as hardware circuitry instead of software code can be useful in devices where energy matters. Actually, a slow-clocked hardware implementation of an algorithm can offer the same performance as a higher speed software implementation, with less energy consumption [32]. Thus, reconfigurable hardware can improve energy efficiency of CPU-and GPU-based systems [30].…”
Section: Reconfigurable Hardwarementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contemporary literature estimates that commercially-available FPGAs are 8-88X worse in area, 2-14X in delay, and 12-500X in power relative to even a standard-cell ASIC design [18]. Often worse are fetchexecute processors, which can be orders of magnitude less efficient in energy and delay than FPGA implementations [19,24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%