This paper reports on the design of a test chip built to test a) a new latency insensitive network fabric protocol and circuits, b) a new synchronizer design, and c) how efficiently one can synchronize into a clocked domain when elastic interfaces are utilized. Simulations show that the latency insensitive network allows excellent characterization of network performance in terms of the cost of routing, amount of blocking due to congestion, and message buffering. The network routers show that peak performance near 100 % link utilization is achieved under congestion and combining. This enables accurate high-level modeling of the behavior of the network fabric so that optimized network design, including placement and routing, can occur through high-level network synthesis tools. The chip also shows that when elastic interfaces are used at the boundary of clock synchronization points then efficient domain crossings can occur. Buffering at the synchronization points are required to allow for variability in clocking frequencies and correct data transmission. The asynchronous buffering and synchronization scheme is shown to perform over four times faster than the clocked interface.

Abstract—Power consumption of on-chip interconnects is a primary concern for many embedded system-on-chip (SoC) applications. In this paper, we compare energy and performance characteristics of asynchronous (clockless) and synchronous networkon-chip implementations, optimized for a number of SoC designs. We adapted the COSI-2.0 framework with ORION 2.0 router and wire models for synchronous network generation. Our own tool, ANetGen, specifies the asynchronous network by determining the topology with simulated-annealing and router locations with force-directed placement. It uses energy and delay models from our 65nm bundled-data router design. SystemC simulations varied traffic burstiness using the self-similar b-model. Results show that the asynchronous network provided lower median and maximum message latency, especially under bursty traffic, and used far less router energy with a slight overhead for the interrouter wires. I.