2002
DOI: 10.1109/43.980262
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reporting of standard cell placement results

Abstract: VLSI fabrication technology has advanced rapidly, bringing with it a strong demand for faster and better design automation tools. Accurate reporting of results for placement approaches is crucial to the development of improved automation tools; unfortunately, publicly available placement benchmarks are outdated, and there are wide variations in their interpretation.At best, poor benchmarks and differences in interpretation result in misunderstandings of the effectiveness of some approaches. At worst, they can … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(11 reference statements)
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Wire lengths listed are half-perimeter wire lengths (for the case of placement) and routed wire lengths, measured in microns (an inter-wafer is assumed here to be equivalent to one micron of wire; this value can be adjusted to match a given 3- D technology) and averaged over the 18 circuits in the benchmark. For 2-D instances, the placer is competitive with the contemporary standard-cell placers shown in [18]. With 3-D integration, we note that a 28% reduction in total wire length is achievable with just two wafers, and that 51% reduction is possible with five wafers, assuming an optimal integration technology.…”
Section: Performance Of the 3-d Standard Cell Place And Route Toolsmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Wire lengths listed are half-perimeter wire lengths (for the case of placement) and routed wire lengths, measured in microns (an inter-wafer is assumed here to be equivalent to one micron of wire; this value can be adjusted to match a given 3- D technology) and averaged over the 18 circuits in the benchmark. For 2-D instances, the placer is competitive with the contemporary standard-cell placers shown in [18]. With 3-D integration, we note that a 28% reduction in total wire length is achievable with just two wafers, and that 51% reduction is possible with five wafers, assuming an optimal integration technology.…”
Section: Performance Of the 3-d Standard Cell Place And Route Toolsmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Finally, the lack of common infrastructure makes comparison of results between different tools problematic. Both [97] and [98] discuss this particular issue in detail.…”
Section: Openaccessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, ACG in [28] is presented as "more suitable for interconnect plan" than existing representations, but no results on interconnect are reported. This state of confusion reminds of the critical analysis of VLSI placement literature in [15], and our work is motivated similarly. However, a major difference is that many results in floorplanning have been mathematically proven, therefore our focus is on relevance and applicability rather than correctness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%