Researcher profile

Daniel Etiemble

Daniel Etiemble contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
2topics
0close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

CNTFET quaternary multipliers are less efficient than the corresponding binary ones

We compare N*N quaternary digit and 2N*2N bit CNTFET multipliers in terms of Worst case delay, Chip area, Power and Power Delay Product (PDP) for N=1, N=2 and N=4. Both multipliers use Wallace reduction trees. HSpice simulations with 32-nm CNTFET parameters shows that the binary implementations are always more efficient: the 1*1 quit multiplier is far more complex than a 1*1 bit multiplier (AND gate) and generate both product and a carry terms. Even with half number of terms, the quaternary reduction tree has the same number of terms than the binary one, and uses quaternary adders that are also more complicated than the binary ones. The quaternary multipliers have larger worst case delays, more power dissipation and far more chip areas than the binary ones computing the same amount of information.

preprint2022arXiv

Technologies and Computing Paradigms: Beyond Moore's law?

As it is pretty sure that Moore's law will end some day, questioning about the post-Moore era is more than interesting. Similarly, looking for new computing paradigms that could provide solutions is important. Revisiting the history of digital electronics since the 60's provide significant insights on the conditions for the success of a new emerging technology to replace the currently dominant one. Specifically, the past shows when constraints and « walls » have contribute to evolution through improved technical techniques and when they have provoked changes of technologies (evolution versus breakthrough). The main criteria for a new technology or a new computing paradigm is a significant performance improvement (at least one order of magnitude). Cost, space requirement, power and scalability are the other important parameters.

preprint2022arXiv

Ternary and Quaternary CNTFET Full Adders are less efficient than the Binary Ones for Carry-Propagate Adders

In Carry Propagate Adders, carry propagation is the critical delay. The most efficient scheme is to generate Cout0 (Cin=0) and Cout1(Cin=1) and multiplex the correct output according to Cin. For any radix, the carry output is always 0/1. We present two versions of ternary adders with Cin = (0V, Vdd/2) and Cin = (0V, Vdd) and two versions of quaternary adders with Cin = (0V, Vdd/3) and Cin = (0V, Vdd). Using full swing Vdd for Cin reduces the propagation delays for ternary and quaternary adders. 6-bit, 4-trit and 3-quit CPAs are then compared.

preprint2022arXiv

Two New CNTFET Quaternary Full Adders for Carry-Propagate Adders

In Carry Propagate Adders, carry propagation is the critical delay. For the 1-digit adders that they use, the most efficient scheme is to generate two intermediate carries: C$_{out0}$ ($C_{in}$=0) and $C_{out1}$($C_{in}$=1). Then multiplex them to produce the correct output according to $C_{in}$. For any radix, the carry output has always a logical value 0 or 1. We show that using 0 and $V_{dd}$ levels for input and output carries instead of 0 and $V_{dd}$/3 in quaternary full adders significantly reduce the carry propagation. We compare such a quaternary full adder with binary full adders to implement N-digit carry propagate adders.

preprint2021arXiv

Best CNTFET Ternary Adders?

The MUX implementation of ternary half adders and full adders using predecessor and successor functions lead to the most efficient efficient implementation using the smallest transistor count. These designs are compared with the binary implementation of the corresponding half adders and full adders using the MUX technique or the typical complementary CMOS circuit style. The transistor count ratio between ternary and binary implementations is always greater than the information ratio ($log_2(3)/log_2(2)$ = 1.585) between ternary and binary wires.

preprint2020arXiv

Best implementations of quaternary adders

The implementation of a quaternary 1-digit adder composed of a 2-bit binary adder, quaternary to binary decoders and binary to quaternary encoders is compared with several recent implementations of quaternary adders. This simple implementation outperforms all other implementations using only one power supply. It is equivalent to the best other implementation using three power supplies. The best quaternary adder using a 2-bit binary adder, the interface circuits between quaternary and binary levels are just overhead compared to the binary adder. This result shows that the quaternary approach for adders use more transistors, more chip area and more power dissipation than the corresponding binary ones.

preprint2020arXiv

Comparing quaternary and binary multipliers

We compare the implementation of a 8x8 bit multiplier with two different implementations of a 4x4 quaternary digit multiplier. Interfacing this binary multiplier with quaternary to binary decoders and binary to quaternary encoders leads to a 4x4 multiplier that outperforms the best direct implementation of a 4x4 quaternary multiplier. The far greater complexity of the 1-digit multipliers and 1-digit adders used in this direct implementation compared to the binary 1-bit multipliers and full adders cannot be compensated by the reduced count of quaternary operators. As the best quaternary multiplier includes the corresponding binary one, it means that there is no opportunity to get less interconnects, less chip area, less power dissipation with the quaternary multiplier.