RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters
George,
I hope you weren't driving at the time. :)
Unfortunately you didn't answer my question. So I went back and re-read your November tutorial (esp. slides 30-35) and it looks like the key to your complexity reduction is the use of the MIMO receiver.
But this leads me to a new question. You agreed in a previous email that a 10GBASE-T solution based on a "simplest extension" of 1000BASE-T would result in a 45x complexity increase. Your tutorial says that the proposed 10GBASE-T receiver complexity is 6x that 1000BASE-T, which is approximately a *7x reduction* from the straightforward approach. If I understand correctly, this reduction results primarily from using the MIMO receiver. So would it be reasonable to assume that a 1000BASE-T receiver using MIMO would result in a sub-100 mW solution? Wow.
Vivek
Cicada Semiconductor
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Zimmerman [mailto:gzimmerman@solarflare.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:45 PM
> To: Vivek Telang
> Cc: stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters
>
>
>
>
>
> Vivek- I'm writing this from traffic so I'll be brief. The 6x
> is based on ops counts of our efficient realization vs. 1
> TOP for a quad 1000BASE--T reported in both BRCM and
> Cicada press releases
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "vivek@cicada-semi.com"<vivek@cicada-semi.com>
> Sent: 7/30/03 6:31:32 PM
> To: "gzimmerman@solarflare.com"<gzimmerman@solarflare.com>
> Cc: "stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org"<stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org>
> Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] PAR and 5 critters
>
> George,
>
> Can you walk me through the reduction in complexity from 45x
> to 6x. I'm
> just talking about the cancelers here (Echo and NEXT). You
> don't have to
> disclose any IP. Just a broad reference to the technique will
> do. I just
> want to make sure that you're not double-counting any DSP
> techniques that
> are already being used to reduce the complexity in today's 1000BASE-T
> PHYs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vivek
> Cicada Semiconductor
>
> >
> > In deference to some of Brad & Bob Grow's earlier
> admonition, technical
> > feasibility is a matter of increasing confidence as time
> moves on. The
> > tone of this discussion appears to have moved from the
> "can't be done at
> > all" to "how much & what kind of silicon will it require".
> I will assume
> > that we have entered that stage.
> >
> > We have presented our estimates of feasibility at about 6X
> 1000 BASE-T
> > and implementable in today's CMOS at the tutorial in November.
> > Regardless, there is no doubt that 90nm will be a
> commercial processes
> > well before 10GBASE-T is through the standards process (at
> the earliest
> > 2nd half of 2005), and 65nm will be commercial as 10GBASE-T
> begins to
> > ramp in the subsequent years.
> >
> > In direct response to Dan's concern, there are a variety of
> algorithms
> > that do not require closing the loop at the baud rate, (the
> simplest of
> > which are the look-ahead algorithms which have obvious complexity
> > drawbacks), various reduced-state and lower-complexity
> forms are well
> > studied in the literature, and have been implemented in commercial
> > products. (Dan - you will also see EMI measurements from November)
> >
> > In deference to earlier comments by Vivek & others, yes, if
> I just take
> > the simplest form of design (direct-form FIR) and multiply up by the
> > baud rate & # of taps I get a huge complexity multipler
> (something like
> > the 45X 1000 BASE-T), but just because the
> simplest-extension yields a
> > huge complexity doesn't mean that it is non-feasible.
> Current art in
> > efficient and multi-rate filtering algorithms don't scale
> linearly as
>
>
> [Message truncated. Tap Edit->Mark for Download to get
> remaining portion.]
>
>
>