editor's blog
Subscribe Now

MIMO: Hardware or Software?

A while back we covered CEVA’s move to multicore for their communications-oriented XC architecture. One of the motivating elements was the complexity of requirements for features like MIMO, the ability to use more than one antenna – and multiple channels formed by the product of the number of sending and receiving antennas. They say that using a software approach provides the flexibility needed for the variety of options, that there are too many differences between options to implement in hardware: there would be too much unshared hardware, and it would be inefficient.

Sounds reasonable. But then came a completely separate announcement from Quantenna. They’re also doing MIMO, but in hardware. They can handle up to 4×4 MIMO (that is, 4 antennas sending, 4 receiving; 16 channels). And they say that it’s not reasonable to expect to be able to meet the performance requirements without doing it in hardware.

Both companies seem to agree on the complexity of the standards they’re implementing. The thing about such WiFi communication is that the environment is constantly changing, and you have to constantly re-evaluate which channels are working best and where to send things. This re-optimization is checked every 100 ms.

In fact, Quantenna says that, if the radar band is unpopulated, it can also be used, although they claim that most boxes don’t take advantage of this, remaining within the crowded non-radar portion, even though the radar portion has the bulk of the available bandwidth.

There is also beam-forming to be done – including “blind” beam-forming, where only one end of the channel can do it. Channel stability has to be rock solid since there’s no buffering for streaming video. Equalization has to be optimized. And in a higher layer, there’s quality-of-service (QoS) for video.

And most of this isn’t established at design time; it’s a constant real-time re-jiggering of parameters to keep things working as efficiently as possible. And it has to work alongside the earlier 802.11n and below standards. And Quantenna says they can handle all of this in hardware, without blowing the silicon budget.

You can imagine that being able to do it in software might be quite convenient and space-efficient. You can also imagine that hardware would provide much higher performance. So which is best?

Rather than get into the middle of adjudicating this myself, I offer both sides the opportunity to state their cases in the comments below. And any of the rest of you that have something constructive to contribute to the discussion, please do.

Meanwhile, you can get more details on Quantenna’s announcement in their release.

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Jan 21, 2022
Here are a few teasers for what you'll find in this week's round-up of CFD news and notes. How AI can be trained to identify more objects than are in its learning dataset. Will GPUs really... [[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community si...
Jan 20, 2022
High performance computing continues to expand & evolve; our team shares their 2022 HPC predictions including new HPC applications and processor architectures. The post The Future of High-Performance Computing (HPC): Key Predictions for 2022 appeared first on From Silico...
Jan 20, 2022
As Josh Wardle famously said about his creation: "It's not trying to do anything shady with your data or your eyeballs ... It's just a game that's fun.'...

featured video

AI SoC Chats: Understanding Compute Needs for AI SoCs

Sponsored by Synopsys

Will your next system require high performance AI? Learn what the latest systems are using for computation, including AI math, floating point and dot product hardware, and processor IP.

Click here for more information about DesignWare IP for Amazing AI

featured paper

nanoPower Module Extends Battery Life in Space-Constrained Applications

Sponsored by Analog Devices

Designers can now increase battery life and reduce size in space-constrained IoT devices with a power module that features the lowest quiescent current compared to competitive solutions and uSLIC built-in inductor technology that reduces solution size by up to 37%.

Read Now

featured chalk talk

Complete Packaging for IIoT Devices

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics and Phoenix Contact

Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) design brings a new level of demands to the engineering team, particularly in areas like thermal performance, reliability, and scalability. And, packaging has a key role to play. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton chats with Joel Boone of Phoenix Contact about challenges and solutions in IIoT design packaging.

Click here for more information about Phoenix Contact ICS 50 Enclosure System