Talk:Network on a chip

Network On Chip

Most real NoCs are mesosynchronous as opposed to asynchronous - neither of which is a requirement of being an NoC of course.

We should add some information about commercial products that use NoC, like Tilera's Tile64.

Multiple issues with article

1. Article is not wikified 2. There are no footnotes, just a pile of references with numbers that match with ... nothing 3. Sections are plagiarized from the sources. If these are written for Wikipedia, they should be run through Wikisource Penguinwithin (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not plagiarized. The article gives due credit to the original source at the bottom: The original text can be found at http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/2006/060415.txt

Admittedly, maybe it should be placed somewhere it is better visible. 131.155.15.29 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

--Rkg82 (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Update to commercial deployment of NoC technology--Rkg82 (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Reference to prototypes is completely out of date. At least one silicon-proven NoC was integrated on a video chip being sold in 2008 (Pixelworks), and currently (Oct 2010) a number of chips are being sold with commercially available NoC inside, both to equipement manufacturers and the general public. One example is the latest rabge of Epson Video projectors, launched in 2009-2010.

Still needs work on the dated issues. For example, I think one paper that is quoted is from 2001, which is hardly "emerging" any more. see doi 10.1145/378239.379045 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=379045 W Nowicki (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole statement seems to be rife with network guru jargon, buzz terms and a lack of justification, can we rewrite this or delete it? Although NoCs can borrow concepts and techniques from the well-established domain of computer networking, it is impractical to blindly reuse features of "classical" computer networks and symmetric multiprocessors[citation needed]. In particular, NoC switches should be small, energy-efficient, and fast[citation needed]. Neglecting these aspects along with proper, quantitative comparison was typical for early NoC research but nowadays they are considered in more detail[citation needed]. The routing algorithms should be implemented by simple logic, and the number of data buffers should be minimal[citation needed]. Network topology and execution properties may be application-specific on MPSoCs[citation needed]. 21 June 2016 - reterik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.204.34 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Capitalized Chip appears to be correct. --rgpk (comment) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Network On Chip → Network on chip — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC) wp:mos. Frap (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Prefer Network on a chip -- better English and also widely used
• Compare to System-on-a-chip
• Comment - It appears from a very cursory Google search or two that "Network-on-Chip" is actually the most common rendering. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Network On Chip → Network on a chip – Please put your reason for moving here. Tony (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But I can live with Network on chip if there's objection. In my work with engineers' text, I've found the "a" far more common in this group of items, with the Lab on a chip the stand-out.

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles, such as System on a chip.

As a side question, I'd have thought the hyphens were unnecessary in this cluster of terms (sister terms are hyphenated in the opening para here, for example). Tony (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – with or without "a", but lowercase, no hyphens. The hyphen are common in the adjective form, as in "network-on-a-chip approach" and "network-on-chip technology". But I agree we don't need them in the noun-form title or the lead sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, unless there's objection here over the next few days, I'll fix them up in the main texts in this cluster of articles. Tony (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support better grammar. Network on a Chip , Network-on-a-Chip should also redirect ; complements network-on-a-chip -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support to be consistent with system on a chip as well, which is probably more common than this term. And of course the Grandiose Capital Letter Style needs to go. W Nowicki (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Network on a chip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208034716/http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/index.html to http://www.sigda.org/newsletter/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

References to OSes seem irrelevant

I see a section referring to "VxWorks, RTLinux or QNX". My understanding is that NoC is a SoC design methodology to replace wider bit width SOC internal bus technologies and hence save silicon area. Such underlying connectivity is not something an OS has general exposure to. As such I cannot see the relevancy of the OSes and they should be removed. SoC design and NoC is not my field of specialisation, so I would prefer someone else to make some corrections (or enlighten me why I am incorrect). --DonOnWikiP (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Needs update for algorithms and architectures

As of October 2018, there's a lot of ongoing research about NoC architecture optimization. Some of this should be included. --Daviddwd (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)