Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
The techniques known in literature for the design of SRAM structures with low standby leakage typically exploit an additional operation mode, named the sleep mode or the standby mode. In this paper, existing low leakage SRAM structures are analyzed by several SPEC2000 benchmarks. As expected, the examined SRAM architectures have static power consumption lower than the conventional 6-T SRAM cell. However, the additional activities performed to enter and to exit the sleep mode also lead to higher dynamic energy. Our study demonstrates that, due to this, the overall energy consumption achieved by the known low-leakage techniques is greater than the conventional approach. In the second part of this paper, a novel low-leakage SRAM cell is presented. The proposed structure establishes when to enter and to exit the sleep mode, on the basis of the data stored in it, without introducing time and energy penalties with respect to the conventional 6-T cell. The new SRAM structure was realized using the UMC 0.18-µm, 1.8-V, and the ST 90-nm 1-V CMOS technologies. Tests performed with a set of SPEC2000 benchmarks have shown that the proposed approach is actually energy efficient. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2006 | 10.1109/TVLSI.2006.886397 | IEEE Trans. VLSI Syst. |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
standby mode,low leakage sram structure,sram architecture,sram structure,6-t sram cell,additional operation mode,new sram structure,deep submicrometer cache memory,novel low-leakage sram cell,spec2000 benchmarks,sleep mode,leakage energy reduction,integrated circuit,cache memory,energy efficient,low power electronics | Standby power,Leakage (electronics),CPU cache,Computer science,Efficient energy use,Static random-access memory,Electronic engineering,Sleep mode,Energy consumption,Low-power electronics,Embedded system | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
14 | 11 | 1063-8210 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
12 | 0.95 | 15 |
Authors | ||
4 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fabio Frustaci | 1 | 129 | 17.55 |
| Pasquale Corsonello | 2 | 278 | 38.06 |
| Stefania Perri | 3 | 264 | 33.11 |
| Giuseppe Cocorullo | 4 | 106 | 17.00 |