Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents experimental measurements of the differences between a 90nm CMOS FPGA and 90nm CMOS Standard Cell ASICs in terms of logic density, circuit speed and power consumption. We are motivated to make these measurements to enable system designers to make better informed hoices between these two media and to give insight to FPGA makers on the deficiencies to attack and thereby improve FPGAs. In the paper, we describe the methodology by which the measurements were obtained and we show that, for circuits containing only combinational logic and flip-flops, the ratio of silicon area required to implement them in FPGAs and ASICs is on average 40. Modern FPGAs also contain "hard" blocks such as multiplier/accumulators and block memories and we find that these blocks reduce this average area gap significantly to as little as 21. The ratio of critical path delay, from FPGA to ASIC, is roughly 3 to 4, with less influence from block memory and hard multipliers. The dynamic power onsumption ratio is approximately 12 times and, with hard blocks, this gap generally becomes smaller.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".