Performance Evaluation and Design Trade-Offs for Network-on-Chip Interconnect Architectures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiprocessor system-on-chip (MP-SoC) platforms are emerging as an important trend for SoC design. Power and wire design constraints are forcing the adoption of new design methodologies for system-on-chip (SoC), namely, those that incorporate modularity and explicit parallelism. To enable these MP-SoC platforms, researchers have recently pursued scaleable communication-centric interconnect fabrics, such as networks-on-chip (NoC), which possess many features that are particularly attractive for these. These communication-centric interconnect fabrics are characterized by different trade-offs with regard to latency, throughput, energy dissipation, and silicon area requirements. In this paper, we develop a consistent and meaningful evaluation methodology to compare the performance and characteristics of a variety of NoC architectures. We also explore design trade-offs that characterize the NoC approach and obtain comparative results for a number of common NoC topologies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort in characterizing different NoC architectures with respect to their performance and design trade-offs. To further illustrate our evaluation methodology, we map a typical multiprocessing platform to different NoC interconnect architectures and show how the system performance is affected by these design trade-offs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".