We have detected your current browser version is not the latest one. Xilinx.com uses the latest web technologies to bring you the best online experience possible. Please upgrade to a Xilinx.com supported browser:Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer 11, Safari. Thank you!

Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Visitor sreeja.anand
Registered: ‎07-24-2016

Is there any advantage for 'High Radix' config of Divider generator 5.1 compared to 'Radix2'

Hi ,


I used 3 instances of Xilinx divider generator 5.1 in my design . Dividend and divisor data width are 37 bits. Initially I selected divider configuration as 'Radix2' . It is working fine . But , power consumed by the module containing divider was high. So, I changed divider configuration to 'High Radix' since it is the preferred configuration for operand widths greater than 16 bits as per the Divider datasheet. 


With 'High Radix' configuration;  In the VIVADO Tool around 200 mW reduction (3 dividers together) is observed .So, I expected a reduction in on- board power also. But , when we measured on - board power ; there is no change in power . Power is almost same as the case with 'Radix2' config.


Anybody knows , why power reduction observed in the tool is not reflected while measuring actual power?

Is there any advantage for 'High Radix' config compared to 'Radix2' ?


0 Kudos
1 Reply
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
Registered: ‎08-01-2008

Re: Is there any advantage for 'High Radix' config of Divider generator 5.1 compared to 'Radix2'

High Radix provide High Radix division with prescaling. This is recommended for operand widths greater than around 16 bits. This implementation uses DSP slices and block RAMs

A detailed explanation of each implementation is provided in LUTMult Solution, Radix-2 Solution and High Radix Solution.


For power measurement you required to refer this document
Thanks and Regards
Please mark the post as an answer "Accept as solution" in case it helped resolve your query.
Give kudos in case a post in case it guided to the solution.
0 Kudos