Hogan NoC analysis – Sonics SGN, Arteris FlexNoC, ARM NIC 400: Setting the record straight

However, in my opinion, his product comparison chart has factual errors with respect to Arteris product capabilities.

Jim Hogan NoC table compares silicon-proven Arteris FlexNoC to unproven Sonics SGN

First, I would like to address an area where the analysis may be confusing or shallow:

In the PPA row of the chart, Jim Hogan compares Sonics SGN’s potential obtainable frequency to his estimates of the frequencies of chips incorporating the silicon-proven Arteris FlexNoC and ARM NIC-400 interconnect fabrics.

Here are some of the problems with the analysis in this row:

• Potential performance:  Comparing the potential performance of a technology (“>1 GHz Performance…”) to the actual performance of technologies in shipping chips is a flawed comparison.  There is no relation to the implemented frequencies of SoC interconnect fabrics and the potential frequencies because these speeds are determined by other factors.
  • In most cases, design teams set the interconnect frequency based on a multiple or divisor of the memory controller frequency. (Of course, all these SoCs have multiple clock domains.)
  • There are three main things that impact achievable interconnect frequencies: (1) The amount of logic in the interconnect data flow (for example, advanced QoS or redundancy and safety features, etc.), (2) the number of very long paths within and interconnect that could impact timing closure if not dealt with, and (3) the semiconductor process technology. In the real world, the frequency is a design goal, and the interconnect is adapted to meet it.
  • As an aside, Arteris was marketing >1GHz achievable performance back in 2009 during the FlexNoC Interconnect IP initial product launch.
• Actual performance:  If one were to compare the interconnect frequencies of actual shipping products, then for Sonics, the speed would have to be measured by a calendar rather than a clock:
  • As far as one can tell from public information, there are no shipping SoC chips designed with Sonics SGN today. So it may be some time before anyone sees a commercial chip using that interconnect to validate the “>1Ghz” performance claim.
  • Also, the current chip with the fastest silicon-proven Arteris FlexNoC fabric runs faster than 533 MHz, so the 533 MHz number in the table is wrong.

Jim Hogan NoC table – with Arteris corrections

I created a separate column in Jim Hogan’s original table (appended below) that summarizes Arteris FlexNoC’s actual features and characteristics, and also added new rows for Latency and Silicon-Proven product adoption. My additions are in blue.

It’s clear that NoC technology is now being adopted by all semiconductor makers creating SoCs with sufficient complexity. And it’s even clearer that Arteris FlexNoC is the gold standard for NoC interconnect fabric IP.

Why have Samsung, Qualcomm, TI and Freescale all adopted Arteris FlexNoC?

But don’t trust my word for it: Ask yourself, “Why have Samsung, Qualcomm, TI and Freescale adopted Arteris FlexNoC as their corporate-standard interconnect fabric IP for their most important chips?”

Innovative technology, excellent engineering, a robust product roadmap and customer satisfaction always speak louder than marketing!