2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2016.04.171
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance analysis of an efficient MAC unit using CNTFET technology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This value is carried out using QCAPro software [61]. According to Table 3, the proposed MAC unit consumes less power than classical implementations [57][58][59]62]. Hence, this proposed circuit would reduce the computational complexity and the power consumption as compared to conventional logic circuits.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This value is carried out using QCAPro software [61]. According to Table 3, the proposed MAC unit consumes less power than classical implementations [57][58][59]62]. Hence, this proposed circuit would reduce the computational complexity and the power consumption as compared to conventional logic circuits.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the architecture defined in [37] is implemented in 180 nm technology with a 1.8 V supply voltage for 16-MAC operation, it consumes substantially more power than the SFMAC architecture. The implementation of the architecture listed in [38] is for 1-bit unsigned fixed-point MAC operation in 32 nm CMOS & CNTFET technology, so a comparison with an 8-bit SFMAC is meaningless. Despite the fact that the architecture described in [32] is the only existing MAC architecture capable of performing on signed floating-point operations, a comparative study with the proposed SFMAC reveals that SFMAC's efficiency in terms of power consumption is much better.…”
Section: Esc Blockmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Vedic multiplier based MAC architecture in [30] has a little advantage in speed in comparison to the proposed SFMAC architecture but at the cost of very high power consumption. For the architecture mentioned in [31], the implementation is done for 1-bit unsigned fixed-point MAC operation in 32 nm CMOS and CNTFET technology and hence, comparison with 8-bit SFMAC is not relevant. Though the architecture mentioned in [25] is the only existing MAC architecture capable of performing on signed floating-point input, the comparison analysis with pro- posed SFMAC shows that the performance of SFMAC is much better in terms of power consumption.…”
Section: 1mentioning
confidence: 99%