Table 2 Comparisons among the proposed designs.
Designs | Area (µm2) | Cells | Latency | Cost | Percentage improvement in cell | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Even parity generator | Proposed design | 0.04 | 23 | 0.75 | 0.0225 | - |
Das, et al32. | 0.05 | 54 | 1.75 | 0.153125 | 57.5% | |
Sheikhfaal, et al33. | 0.11 | 98 | 2 | 0.44 | 76.5% | |
Mustafa and Beigh36 | 0.17 | 99 | 2 | 0.68 | 76.7% | |
Hashemi, et al35. | 0.28 | 168 | 2.75 | 2.1175 | 86.3% | |
Santra and Roy34 | 0.053 | 60 | 2 | 0.212 | 61.6% | |
Angizi, et al41. (1) | 0.2 | 188 | 2.25 | 1.0125 | 87.7% | |
Poorhosseini and Hejazi42 | 0.08 | 82 | 2 | 0.32 | 71.9% | |
Angizi, et al41. (2) | 0.17 | 109 | 0.75 | 0.09562 | 78.9% | |
Singh, et al43. | 0.10 | 87 | 1.75 | 0.175 | 73.5% | |
Even parity checker | Proposed design | 0.07 | 31 | 1.75 | 0.2143 | - |
Das, et al32. | 0.08 | 96 | 1.75 | 0.245 | 67.7% | |
Mustafa and Beigh36 | 0.28 | 145 | 3 | 2.52 | 78.6% | |
Santra and Roy34 | 0.13 | 117 | 2.25 | 1.4175 | 73.5% | |
Sheikhfaal, et al33. | 0.23 | 179 | 2 | 0.92 | 82.6% | |
Poorhosseini and Hejazi42 | 0.14 | 111 | 2 | 0.56 | 72% | |
Agrawal, et al44. | 0.38 | 220 | 1.25 | 0.593 | 85.9% | |
Nano communication | Proposed circuit 4-bit | 0.26 | 152 | 1.75 | 1.39 | - |
Khan, et al5. 3-bit | 0.17 | 118 | 1.25 | 0.266 | - | |