UPGRADE YOUR BROWSER

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!

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
340 Views
Registered: ‎05-26-2019

Artix7A100 vs Zynq-2020

Jump to solution

Hello

As both Artix7A100 and Zynq-2020 has approximatly the same resource size, do the dual ARM cores of the Zynq-2020 make it practically superior and can fit larger applications?

Thanks

Tags (1)
0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Highlighted
Scholar u4223374
Scholar
305 Views
Registered: ‎04-26-2015

Re: Artix7A100 vs Zynq-2020

Jump to solution

The ARM cores have no effect whatsoever on the programmable logic resources. If a design won't fit on the XC7A100T, it won't fit on the XC7Z020 either.

The ARM cores do mean that you get a powerful processor (more powerful than you could easily implement in the FPGA fabric) for free (ie no resources used), along with all of its peripherals (memory controller, USB, network, etc). Most of these can only be accessed by the ARM cores; you can't get to them from the FPGA fabric directly. The processor can also simplify some tasks; for example Zynq chips can boot from an SD card, whereas the Artix chips require separate flash memory.

 

On the other hand, the XC7Z020 has a somewhat smaller FPGA fabric than the XC7A100T, it costs more (not much more, but still), it has more limited package options, and it has no high-speed transceivers.

 

As a general rule, if you were going to include a processor anyway (eg. MicroBlaze) then get the Zynq. If you're doing a pure FPGA design, stick with the Artix.

 

 

View solution in original post

1 Reply
Highlighted
Scholar u4223374
Scholar
306 Views
Registered: ‎04-26-2015

Re: Artix7A100 vs Zynq-2020

Jump to solution

The ARM cores have no effect whatsoever on the programmable logic resources. If a design won't fit on the XC7A100T, it won't fit on the XC7Z020 either.

The ARM cores do mean that you get a powerful processor (more powerful than you could easily implement in the FPGA fabric) for free (ie no resources used), along with all of its peripherals (memory controller, USB, network, etc). Most of these can only be accessed by the ARM cores; you can't get to them from the FPGA fabric directly. The processor can also simplify some tasks; for example Zynq chips can boot from an SD card, whereas the Artix chips require separate flash memory.

 

On the other hand, the XC7Z020 has a somewhat smaller FPGA fabric than the XC7A100T, it costs more (not much more, but still), it has more limited package options, and it has no high-speed transceivers.

 

As a general rule, if you were going to include a processor anyway (eg. MicroBlaze) then get the Zynq. If you're doing a pure FPGA design, stick with the Artix.

 

 

View solution in original post