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
Mar 27, 2020
[From the last episode: We saw how pointers are an important kind of variable, representing data whose location we can'€™t predict in advance.] We saw last time that pointers are used to store the addresses of data stored in memory space that'€™s allocated while the progr...
Mar 27, 2020
Have you ever paused to consider how temptingly tasty electronic circuits would look if their components and copper tracks were mounted on a glass substrate?...
Mar 27, 2020
Solar Power While the cost and benefits of solar power can and have been debated, there'€™s one point that cannot be debated:  the solar energy sector continues to grow.   The solar energy sector has grown 68% over the last decade, and the cost of solar infrastruc...
Mar 26, 2020
Late last week you may have seen the open letter  from our CEO, Tony Hemmelgarn, laying out the steps that Siemens Digital Industries Software is taking to support our customers during the COVID-19 global crisis. All of us are getting use to the “new normal” ...

Featured Video

Automotive Trends Driving New SoC Architectures -- Synopsys

Sponsored by Synopsys

Today’s automotive trends are driving new design requirements for automotive SoCs targeting ADAS, gateways, connected cars and infotainment. Find out why it is essential to use pre-designed, pre-verified, reusable automotive-optimized IP to meet such new requirements and accelerate design time.

Drive Your Next Design to Completion Today with DesignWare IP® for Automotive SoCs