Hubbry Logo
Soft microprocessorSoft microprocessorMain
Open search
Soft microprocessor
Community hub
Soft microprocessor
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Soft microprocessor
Soft microprocessor
Soft microprocessor
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A soft microprocessor (also called softcore microprocessor or a soft processor) is a microprocessor core that can be wholly implemented using logic synthesis. It can be implemented via different semiconductor devices containing programmable logic (e.g., FPGA, CPLD), including both high-end and commodity variations.[1]

Most systems, if they use a soft processor at all, only use a single soft processor. However, a few designers tile as many soft cores onto an FPGA as will fit.[2] In those multi-core systems, rarely used resources can be shared between all the cores in a cluster.

While many people put exactly one soft microprocessor on a FPGA, a sufficiently large FPGA can hold two or more soft microprocessors, resulting in a multi-core processor. The number of soft processors on a single FPGA is limited only by the size of the FPGA.[3] Some people have put dozens or hundreds of soft microprocessors on a single FPGA.[4][5][6][7][8] This is one way to implement massive parallelism in computing and can likewise be applied to in-memory computing.

A soft microprocessor and its surrounding peripherals implemented in a FPGA is less vulnerable to obsolescence than a discrete processor.[9][10][11]

Core comparison

[edit]
Processor Developer Open source Bus support Notes Project home Description language
based on the ARM instruction set architecture
Amber Conor Santifort LGPLv2.1 Wishbone ARMv2a 3-stage or 5-stage pipeline Project page at Opencores Verilog
Cortex-M1 ARM No [6] 70–200 MHz, 32-bit RISC [7] Verilog
based on the AVR instruction set architecture
Navré Sébastien Bourdeauducq Yes Direct SRAM Atmel AVR-compatible 8-bit RISC Project page at Opencores Verilog
pAVR Doru Cuturela Yes Atmel AVR-compatible 8-bit RISC Project page at Opencores VHDL
softavrcore Andras Pal Yes Standard AVR buses (core-coupled I/O, synchronous SRAM, synchronous program ROM) Atmel AVR-compatible 8-bit RISC (up to AVR5), peripherals and SoC features included Project page at Opencores Verilog
based on the MicroBlaze instruction set architecture
AEMB Shawn Tan Yes Wishbone MicroBlaze EDK 3.2 compatible AEMB Verilog
MicroBlaze Xilinx No PLB, OPB, FSL, LMB, AXI4 Xilinx MicroBlaze
OpenFire Virginia Tech CCM Lab Yes OPB, FSL Binary compatible with the MicroBlaze [8][12] Verilog
SecretBlaze LIRMM, University of Montpellier / CNRS Yes Wishbone MicroBlaze ISA, VHDL SecretBlaze VHDL
based on the MCS-51 instruction set architecture
MCL51 MicroCore Labs Yes Ultra-small-footprint microsequencer-based 8051 core 312 Artix-7 LUTs. Quad-core 8051 version is 1227 LUTs. MCL51 Core
TSK51/52 Altium Royalty-free Wishbone / Intel 8051 8-bit Intel 8051 instruction set compatible, lower clock cycle alternative Embedded Design on Altium Wiki
based on the MIPS instruction set architecture
BERI University of Cambridge BSD MIPS Project page Bluespec
Dossmatik René Doss CC BY-NC 3.0, except commercial applicants have to pay a licence fee. Pipelined bus MIPS I instruction set pipeline stages Dossmatik VHDL
TSK3000A Altium Royalty-free Wishbone 32-bit R3000-style RISC modified Harvard-architecture CPU Embedded Design on Altium Wiki
based on the PicoBlaze instruction set architecture
PacoBlaze Pablo Bleyer Yes Compatible with the PicoBlaze processors PacoBlaze Verilog
PicoBlaze Xilinx No Xilinx PicoBlaze VHDL, Verilog
based on the RISC-V instruction set architecture
f32c University of Zagreb BSD AXI, SDRAM, SRAM 32-bit, RISC-V / MIPS ISA subsets (retargetable), GCC toolchain f32c VHDL
NEORV32 Stephan Nolting BSD Wishbone b4, AXI4 rv32[i/e] [m] [a] [c] [b] [u] [Zfinx] [Zicsr] [Zifencei], RISC-V-compliant, CPU & SoC available, highly customizable, GCC toolchain GitHub OpenCores VHDL
VexRiscv SpinalHDL Yes AXI4 / Avalon 32-bit, RISC-V, up to 340 MHz on Artix 7. Up to 1.44 DMIPS/MHz. https://github.com/SpinalHDL/VexRiscv VHDLVerilog (SpinalHDL)
based on the SPARC instruction set architecture
LEON2(-FT) ESA Yes AMBA2 SPARC V8 ESA VHDL
LEON3/4 Aeroflex Gaisler Yes AMBA2 SPARC V8 Aeroflex Gaisler VHDL
OpenPiton Princeton Parallel Group Yes Manycore SPARC V9 OpenPiton Verilog
OpenSPARC T1 Sun Yes 64-bit OpenSPARC.net Verilog
Tacus/PIPE5 TemLib Yes Pipelined bus SPARC V8 TEMLIB VHDL
based on the x86 instruction set architecture
CPU86 HT-Lab Yes 8088-compatible CPU in VHDL cpu86 VHDL
MCL86 MicroCore Labs Yes 8088 BIU provided. Others easy to create. Cycle accurate 8088/8086 implemented with a microsequencer. Less than 2% utilization of Kintex-7. MCL86 Core
s80x86 Jamie Iles GPLv3 Custom 80186-compatible GPLv3 core s80x86 SystemVerilog
Zet Zeus Gómez Marmolejo Yes Wishbone x86 PC clone Zet Verilog
ao486 Aleksander Osman 3-Clause BSD Avalon i486 SX compatible core ao486 Verilog
based on the PowerPC/Power instruction set architecture
PowerPC 405S IBM No CoreConnect 32-bit PowerPC v.2.03 Book E IBM Verilog
PowerPC 440S IBM No CoreConnect 32-bit PowerPC v.2.03 Book E IBM Verilog
PowerPC 470S IBM No CoreConnect 32-bit PowerPC v.2.05 Book E IBM Verilog
Microwatt IBM/OpenPOWER CC-BY 4.0 Wishbone 64-bit PowerISA 3.0 proof of concept Microwatt @ Github VHDL
Chiselwatt IBM/OpenPOWER CC-BY 4.0 Wishbone 64-bit PowerISA 3.0 Chiselwatt @ Github Chisel
Libre-SOC Libre-SoC.org BSD/LGPLv2+ Wishbone 64-bit PowerISA 3.0. CPU/GPU/VPU implementation and custom vector instructions Libre-SoC.org python/nMigen
A2I IBM/OpenPOWER CC-BY 4.0 Custom PBus 64-bit PowerPC 2.6 Book E. In order core A2I @ Github VHDL
A2O IBM/OpenPOWER CC-BY 4.0 Custom PBus 64-bit PowerPC 2.7 Book E. Out of order core A2O @ Github Verilog
Other architectures
ARC ARC International, Synopsys No 16/32/64-bit ISA RISC DesignWare ARC Verilog
ERIC5 Entner Electronics No 9-bit RISC, very small size, C-programmable ERIC5 Archived 2016-03-05 at the Wayback Machine VHDL
H2 CPU Richard James Howe MIT Custom 16-bit Stack Machine, designed to execute Forth directly, small H2 CPU VHDL
Instant SoC FPGA Cores No Custom 32-bit RISC-V M Extension, SoC defined by C++ Instant SoC VHDL
JOP Martin Schoeberl Yes SimpCon / Wishbone (extension) Stack-oriented, hard real-time support, executing Java bytecode directly Jop VHDL
LatticeMico8 Lattice Yes Wishbone LatticeMico8 Verilog
LatticeMico32 Lattice Yes Wishbone LatticeMico32 Verilog
LXP32 Alex Kuznetsov MIT Wishbone 32-bit, 3-stage pipeline, register file based on block RAM lxp32 VHDL
MCL65 MicroCore Labs Yes Ultra-small-footprint microsequencer-based 6502 core 252 Spartan-7 LUTs. Clock cycle-exact. MCL65 Core
MRISC32-A1 Marcus Geelnard Yes Wishbone, B4/pipelined 32-bit RISC/Vector CPU implementing the MRISC32 ISA MRISC32 VHDL
NEO430 Stephan Nolting Yes Wishbone (Avalon, AXI4-Lite) 16-bit MSP430 ISA-compatible, very small size, many peripherals, highly customizable NEO430 VHDL
Nios, Nios II Altera No Avalon Altera Nios II Verilog
OpenRISC OpenCores Yes Wishbone 32-bit; done in ASIC, Actel, Altera, Xilinx FPGA. [9] Verilog
SpartanMC TU Darmstadt / TU Dresden Yes Custom (AXI support in development) 18-bit ISA (GNU Binutils / GCC support in development) SpartanMC Verilog
SYNPIC12 Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo MIT PIC12F compatible, program synthesised in gates nbee.es VHDL
xr16 Jan Gray No XSOC abstract bus 16-bit RISC CPU and SoC featured in Circuit Cellar Magazine #116-118 XSOC/xr16 Schematic
YASEP Yann Guidon AGPLv3 Direct SRAM 16 or 32 bits, RTL in VHDL & asm in JS, microcontroller subset : ready yasep.org (Firefox required) VHDL
ZipCPU Gisselquist Technology GPLv3 Wishbone, B4/pipelined 32-bit CPU targeted for minimal FPGA resource usage zipcpu.com Verilog
ZPU Zylin AS Yes Wishbone Stack based CPU, configurable 16/32 bit datapath, eCos support Zylin CPU VHDL
RISC5 Niklaus Wirth Yes Custom Running a complete graphical Oberon System including an editor and compiler. Software can be developed and ran on the same FPGA board. www.projectoberon.com/ Verilog

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Soft microprocessor

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A soft microprocessor, also known as a soft-core processor, is a core whose and functionality are fully defined using a synthesizable (HDL), such as or , and implemented on reconfigurable hardware like field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) through logic synthesis. Unlike hard microprocessors etched directly into chips, soft microprocessors offer extensive customization, allowing designers to tailor the core's features, peripherals, and performance to specific applications without fabricating new hardware. Soft microprocessors emerged in the late as FPGAs advanced, enabling designers to integrate processing capabilities directly into programmable logic fabrics. Early examples include the LEON processors developed by the starting in 1997, such as the SPARC V8-compliant LEON3 core released in 2004, and the OR1200, initiated in 1999 by an open-source community for general-purpose use. Commercial adoption accelerated in the early with 's (released in 2001), a configurable 32-bit RISC core optimized for Xilinx FPGAs, and Altera's (now Intel's) , introduced in 2004 as a highly customizable RISC processor integrated with their Quartus tools. These developments shifted soft microprocessors from educational tools to essential components in , supporting hardware-software co-design and . Key advantages of soft microprocessors include reconfigurability, which allows post-fabrication modifications to adapt to evolving requirements, and cost-effectiveness for low-to-medium production volumes by leveraging existing FPGA hardware. They facilitate platform independence, reduced time-to-market, and seamless integration of custom peripherals, making them ideal for embedded systems in IoT, , and real-time applications. However, they typically exhibit lower clock speeds (often 100-300 MHz on modern FPGAs), higher power consumption, and larger resource utilization compared to hard cores due to the overhead of FPGA logic elements. Recent trends emphasize open-standard architectures like , which enable modular, low-power soft cores with broad ecosystem support, including AMD's V released in 2024, further revolutionizing their use in diverse IC designs.

Fundamentals

Definition and Characteristics

A soft , also known as a soft-core processor, is a core that is entirely implemented using a (HDL) such as or , and is targeted for synthesis into programmable logic devices like field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs). Unlike traditional fabricated with fixed transistors, a soft has no predefined hardware layout and is configured post-design through logic synthesis tools that map the HDL code to the target device's resources. This approach allows the processor to be generated as a binary adaptable to various programmable logic architectures without requiring physical modifications. Key characteristics of soft microprocessors include high configurability at the bit and gate level, enabling designers to tailor aspects such as data path widths, instruction sets, and peripheral interfaces to specific requirements. They offer portability across different FPGA families or vendors by relying on synthesizable HDL code rather than device-specific layouts, facilitating reuse in diverse hardware environments. is another hallmark, as features like stages, cache sizes, and units can be adjusted during synthesis to balance performance, area, and power consumption on the available logic resources. Recent implementations, such as AMD's V and Intel's Nios V, leverage for better scalability and performance. occurs using the target device's fundamental elements, including lookup tables (LUTs) for , flip-flops for sequential storage, and programmable interconnects for routing signals between components. Soft microprocessors are distinguished from related concepts like firm cores and hard cores in their level of flexibility and implementation stage. A firm core is a partially fixed design, typically provided as a gate-level optimized for a specific FPGA family but still allowing limited modifications. In contrast, a hard core is pre-wired in silicon as part of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or system-on-chip (SoC), offering fixed performance but no post-fabrication reconfiguration. Soft cores, being fully synthesizable from HDL source, provide the greatest adaptability but may incur synthesis overheads compared to the more rigid firm and hard variants. At their core, soft microprocessors operate via a classic instruction fetch-decode-execute cycle, adapted to the constraints of programmable logic resources. In the fetch stage, an instruction is retrieved from using LUT-based generation and flip-flop storage for the . The decode stage interprets the and operands through implemented in LUTs, potentially generating control signals for execution. Finally, the execute stage performs the operation—such as arithmetic or data movement—leveraging the FPGA's interconnects and dedicated blocks like multipliers, before writing results back if needed, all synchronized by the device's clock domain. This cycle repeats, with pipeline optimizations possible to enhance throughput within the available logic slices.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Soft microprocessors offer significant benefits in flexibility and development efficiency, particularly in (FPGA) environments, though they come with performance trade-offs compared to dedicated hard microprocessors. These trade-offs arise from the inherent nature of implementing processor logic using reconfigurable FPGA fabric, which prioritizes adaptability over optimized silicon efficiency. One key advantage is and , as soft microprocessors can be synthesized and tested on FPGAs without the high costs associated with (ASIC) fabrication, enabling quick design modifications and hardware-software co-verification. This approach also facilitates easy customization for specific tasks, such as adding custom instructions or peripherals tailored to an application, which can optimize performance for niche workloads without redesigning the entire system. Additionally, soft microprocessors exhibit high portability across different FPGA vendors and device families, as their (RTL) descriptions can be retargeted with minimal changes, unlike vendor-specific hard cores. For low-volume production, they reduce (NRE) costs by avoiding ASIC mask and fabrication expenses, making them economical for markets where volumes do not justify custom silicon. Furthermore, integration with custom hardware accelerators in the same FPGA is seamless, allowing tight coupling via high-speed buses for enhanced system-level performance in heterogeneous designs. Despite these benefits, soft microprocessors suffer from lower clock speeds, typically operating in the 100-600 MHz range on modern FPGAs (as of 2024), compared to GHz frequencies achievable by hard cores due to the overhead of mapping logic to general-purpose lookup tables (LUTs) and routing resources. They also exhibit higher power consumption per operation from FPGA fabric inefficiencies, such as dynamic switching in configurable logic blocks, though total power may be lower in some low-utilization scenarios. Resource utilization is another limitation, with a basic soft core often consuming 10-50% of an FPGA's LUTs on smaller devices, but much less on larger ones; for instance, an 8-bit core might require 300-2,000 LUTs, while a 32-bit RISC core typically requires 1,000-7,000 LUTs, depending on features like caching and pipelining. Complex designs may encounter timing closure issues, where achieving target frequencies becomes challenging due to interconnect delays and placement constraints in the FPGA.

History

Early Developments

The development of soft microprocessors traces its roots to the invention of the (FPGA) in 1985, when introduced the XC2064, the world's first commercially viable FPGA featuring 64 configurable logic blocks (CLBs) that enabled reconfigurable digital logic for emulating custom circuits, including early processor designs. This breakthrough shifted computing from fixed hardware to programmable fabrics, laying the groundwork for implementing processor logic on reconfigurable devices, though initial applications focused on and simple coprocessors using multiple early FPGAs like the XC2000 and XC3000 series. By the late , these devices supported rudimentary 8-bit minimal instruction set computers (MISCs) across multi-FPGA setups, demonstrating the potential for programmable CPU emulation despite limited resources. A pivotal milestone occurred in 1991 with the RISC4005, the first monolithic general-purpose FPGA-based CPU, designed by Philip Freidin and implemented on a single XC4005 device. This 16-bit (RISC) processor utilized approximately 75% of the XC4005's resources, operated at 20 MHz with a 4-stage and 16 registers, and included supporting tools such as an assembler, C compiler, and simulator to facilitate development. The RISC4005 marked a shift toward single-chip soft processor realizations, proving that general-purpose could be achieved through FPGA reconfiguration without dedicated . In the early 1990s, academic researchers advanced soft microprocessor concepts through projects implementing simple 8-bit processors using (VHSIC Hardware Description Language), emphasizing proof-of-concept demonstrations for paradigms. These efforts, often targeting educational and exploratory goals, explored how FPGA fabrics could support dynamic hardware adaptation for computation, building on the reconfigurability introduced by early devices to validate soft cores as viable alternatives to hardwired processors. Early soft microprocessor designs faced significant challenges due to FPGA density limitations, such as the XC2064's mere 64 CLBs and equivalent of about 800 gates, which constrained implementations to minimalistic architectures lacking features like caches or deep pipelines. Designers overcame these by prioritizing compact instruction sets and basic datapaths, as seen in the RISC4005 and 8-bit MISCs, ensuring functionality within the sparse logic resources available in and early 1990s FPGAs. This approach highlighted the trade-offs in reconfigurable hardware, where resource scarcity drove innovations in efficient logic mapping.

Commercialization and Key Processors

The commercialization of soft microprocessors accelerated in the early , driven by FPGA vendors seeking to provide configurable processing solutions for embedded applications. In 2000, introduced the Nios processor, the first configurable 16/32-bit soft core optimized for its APEX FPGA family, enabling designers to tailor processor features to specific system requirements without relying on fixed hardware. In 2002, launched the , a 32-bit reduced instruction set (RISC) soft core targeted at its Virtex FPGA platform, which supported customizable peripherals and marked a pivotal step toward widespread adoption in programmable logic designs. These offerings shifted soft microprocessors from academic prototypes to commercial IP, fostering integration with FPGA toolchains for rapid system-on-chip development. Subsequent evolutions enhanced scalability and interoperability. Altera's , released in 2004, introduced full 32-bit with built-in support for multiprocessing configurations, allowing multiple cores to share resources in a single FPGA design. advanced the lineage in the 2010s, with version 8.0 and later iterations incorporating (AXI) bus support for improved data throughput and compatibility with modern ARM-based ecosystems. Open-source alternatives emerged alongside these cores; the project, initiated in 2000, provided a freely available 32-bit RISC suitable for FPGA , promoting community-driven customization. Similarly, Gaisler Research's LEON series, developed in the late 1990s and refined through the 2000s, offered SPARC V8-based soft cores with fault-tolerant features, initially for applications but later adopted in broader embedded contexts. Vendor-specific enhancements further differentiated these processors. Intel (formerly Altera) emphasized ease-of-use in its Nios family through tight integration with the Quartus Prime software suite, which streamlines hardware-software co-design via graphical system builders and automated peripheral configuration. In contrast, (formerly Xilinx) prioritized high-performance variants of the MicroBlaze, culminating in the 2024 release of MicroBlaze V, a RISC-V-based core with modular extensions for real-time and application processing in cost-optimized FPGAs. By the mid-2000s, these advancements enabled robust embedded support on soft cores like and , alongside burgeoning IP core ecosystems that allowed seamless integration of peripherals, memory controllers, and communication interfaces. This infrastructure reduced development time and expanded soft microprocessors' role in diverse applications, from industrial automation to . In 2023, announced the discontinuation of the processor (effective March 2024), transitioning to Nios V, a RISC-V-based soft core introduced in 2021 as its successor.

Design and Implementation

Architectural Considerations

Soft microprocessors predominantly employ reduced instruction set computer (RISC) architectures, which are well-suited to the reconfigurable nature of field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) due to their simplicity and efficiency in hardware mapping. For instance, the MicroBlaze processor utilizes a 32-bit RISC instruction set architecture (ISA) that emphasizes fixed-length instructions and load-store operations, facilitating straightforward synthesis onto FPGA fabric. Adaptations from complex instruction set computer (CISC) designs are less common in soft cores, as RISC's streamlined decoding reduces logic overhead, though some implementations incorporate CISC-like features for legacy compatibility. A key advantage of soft microprocessors is their support for custom instructions, which allow designers to offload FPGA-specific tasks—such as accelerating cryptographic primitives or signal processing—directly into the ISA; the Nios II processor, for example, integrates custom instructions via dedicated hardware units connected to the execution pipeline. The core components of soft microprocessors typically include a pipelined execution unit with 1 to 5 stages, balancing throughput and resource utilization; , for instance, supports configurable 3-stage or 5-stage pipelines for fetch, decode, execute, memory access, and write-back operations. prediction mechanisms, such as branch target caches, are often optional to mitigate pipeline stalls from control hazards, with employing a dynamic prediction scheme that caches targets for immediate branches and returns. units (MMUs) provide support through translation lookaside buffers (TLBs) for instruction and , enabling operating system portability; in , the MMU is configurable for supervisor-mode virtual addressing with hardware paging. Peripheral interfaces, including universal asynchronous receiver-transmitters (UARTs) for serial communication and timers for interrupt generation, are integrated via standardized buses to connect external FPGA resources. Optimizations for FPGAs focus on interconnect standards like the Wishbone bus in open-source designs such as , which offers a simple, for modular SoC integration, or the (AXI) in proprietary cores like , providing high-bandwidth, burst-capable transactions with separate read/write channels. Memory architecture trade-offs prioritize Harvard configurations—separating instruction and buses—for improved parallelism and cache efficiency, as seen in MicroBlaze's dual-port design, though von Neumann unified memory may be chosen for simpler area-constrained implementations at the cost of potential bottlenecks. Variants of soft microprocessors span bit widths to match application needs: 8-bit cores like PicoBlaze target low-complexity control tasks with minimal resource footprints, while 16-bit options appear in niche embedded designs. 32-bit and 64-bit cores dominate for general-purpose computing, with extending to 64-bit addressing and Nios V leveraging 32-bit for enhanced scalability. Advanced designs incorporate superscalar or (VLIW) extensions for , though these remain research-oriented due to FPGA logic demands; for example, a superscalar out-of-order x86 soft processor achieves dual-issue execution on modern FPGAs.

Synthesis and Tools

The synthesis of soft microprocessors involves converting (HDL) descriptions, typically in or , into FPGA bitstreams through a structured design flow. This process begins with HDL coding to define the processor's , followed by functional simulation using tools like to verify behavior against testbenches before hardware . Synthesis then maps the HDL to a technology-specific of logic elements, optimized for the target FPGA family, using vendor-specific tools such as AMD's or Intel's Quartus Prime. Subsequent place-and-route stages assign netlist elements to FPGA resources (e.g., lookup tables and flip-flops) and route interconnections, culminating in bitstream generation—a that configures the FPGA to realize the soft processor. Key tools support this flow, with vendor ecosystems providing integrated development environments (IDEs) tailored to proprietary soft cores. For AMD's V, a -based soft processor, handles synthesis, place-and-route, and bitstream generation, while (formerly Xilinx SDK) offers a comprehensive suite including a debugger, GCC-based compiler for embedded software, and hardware-software integration via IP Integrator for adding peripherals like UART or DDR memory. Similarly, Intel's Quartus Prime performs synthesis and implementation for the or Nios V soft processors, paired with the Nios II Embedded Design Suite (EDS) for compiling, assembling, linking, and debugging software in C/C++. Open-source alternatives enable broader accessibility; Yosys serves as a synthesis tool for Verilog-based cores like PicoRV32, generating netlists compatible with various FPGA backends, while the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) with extensions compiles software for these cores, supporting toolchains like those in the RISC-V International ecosystem. Soft microprocessor cores are often parameterizable to adapt to application needs, allowing designers to select features at synthesis time without redesigning the HDL. In , generics define configurable parameters such as cache size, depth, or instruction set extensions (e.g., enabling multipliers or barrel shifters via a generic value like ENABLE_MULTIPLIER : [boolean](/page/Boolean) := true), which propagate through the synthesis tool to instantiate varying hardware resources. equivalents use parameters, as seen in cores like V, where options for RV32I base ISA plus extensions (M for , C for compressed instructions) or stages (3 to 8) are set via GUI or scripts in , balancing area and performance for the target FPGA. This parameterization supports runtime-like flexibility in hardware, such as adjusting cache associativity from direct-mapped to set-associative during creation. Verification ensures the synthesized design's correctness, employing co-simulation to bridge software emulation and hardware models. Tools like Aldec's Riviera-PRO integrate with , an open-source processor emulator, to co-simulate soft core firmware (e.g., binaries) against HDL representations, validating instruction execution and peripheral interactions at speeds faster than pure simulation. Hardware emulators, such as those using multiple FPGAs, accelerate full-system verification by running the bitstream in a near-real-time environment while monitoring signals via or integrated logic analyzers. A persistent challenge is in multi-clock-domain designs, where asynchronous signals crossing domains (e.g., from a processor clock to a peripheral clock) risk unstable flip-flop states; mitigation involves synchronizers like dual-rank flip-flops, analyzed during synthesis with static tools in or Quartus to detect and resolve clock domain crossings.

Applications

Embedded Systems

Soft microprocessors are frequently integrated into system-on-chip (SoC) designs on FPGAs, where they combine with custom logic such as (DMA) controllers and interfaces to enable real-time control in embedded applications. This integration allows the soft core to handle general-purpose processing while dedicated hardware accelerators manage high-speed data paths, reducing latency in systems like (IoT) devices and automotive electronic control units (ECUs). For instance, in automotive ECUs, a soft processor like in a Zynq-7000 SoC communicates via AXI buses and FIFO buffers with FPGA logic for preprocessing, achieving control loops under 1 ms without requiring a . Operating system support for soft microprocessors in embedded environments ranges from bare-metal execution for minimal overhead to real-time operating systems (RTOS) and full-featured kernels. Bare-metal configurations suit simple control tasks, while RTOS like provide multitasking on cores such as , utilizing hardware timers and interrupts for deterministic behavior in resource-constrained setups. For more complex applications, 32-bit soft cores with units (MMUs), like /f, support embedded Linux, enabling file systems, networking stacks, and driver frameworks on FPGAs. In industrial automation, soft microprocessors facilitate programmable logic controllers (PLCs) by executing compliant code, with FPGA reconfigurability allowing updates to control algorithms without hardware changes. A soft core integrated into an FPGA-based PLC architecture accelerates timer functions like and TOF, reducing execution times to 30 ns compared to software-only implementations on traditional PLCs. Similarly, in communications, soft cores serve as protocol handlers, where FPGA reconfiguration enables rapid adaptation to evolving standards, such as updating interfaces for real-time data exchange in networked systems. Power and size optimizations are critical for battery-powered or space-limited embedded applications, often achieved through minimal 8-bit or 16-bit soft core variants that consume fewer FPGA resources. For example, an 8-bit /e core in a MAX 10 FPGA for battery management systems operates at 170-240 mW while handling cell balancing and state-of-charge calculations, matching the efficiency of dedicated microprocessors but with added parallelism. The NEO430 16-bit processor exemplifies size efficiency, fitting into small FPGAs for IoT nodes while supporting peripherals like UARTs, thus extending battery life in sensor networks.

Prototyping and Education

Soft microprocessors play a crucial role in by enabling the emulation of (ASIC) designs on field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) prior to physical fabrication. This approach allows engineers to verify hardware functionality, integrate peripherals, and test system-level interactions in a reconfigurable environment, mitigating risks associated with costly iterations. For example, the soft core has been used to prototype multi-core systems-on-chip (SoCs), facilitating early validation through tools like IP Integrator and AXI interconnects. By supporting concurrent hardware and , soft microprocessors accelerate hardware-software co-design cycles, enabling software teams to begin optimization months earlier than traditional ASIC flows. This parallelism reduces overall time-to-market, as demonstrated in FPGA-based prototypes that allow iterative refinements without respinning . In practice, such prototyping frameworks shorten design validation from potentially years to weeks for complex SoCs, enhancing efficiency in resource-constrained projects. In educational contexts, soft microprocessors provide hands-on platforms for teaching digital design, processor architecture, and embedded systems using accessible FPGA boards. The PicoBlaze soft core, valued for its simplicity and open-source implementation, is integrated into university curricula, such as at the , where students implement assembly programming, interrupts, and interfacing on Basys 2/Spartan-3E boards for projects like timers and multi-processor arrays with FIFO communication. These labs foster understanding of and prepare students for industry-standard system-on-programmable-chip (SoPC) designs, with assessments showing high comprehension and interest levels. Open-source soft cores further support university projects by enabling exploration of customizable processor architectures on FPGAs. Cores like PicoRV32, optimized for compact implementations on low-end devices such as Lattice iCE40, and SERV, a serial variant emphasizing area efficiency, are used in academic settings to teach FPGA programming, instruction sets, and optimization techniques with tools like Yosys. These implementations facilitate in low-resource designs and hands-on verification of architectural trade-offs. FPGA development kits incorporating soft cores are essential for algorithm testing, particularly in prototypes, where they enable real-time acceleration of compute-intensive tasks. This setup allows developers to iterate on algorithms like filtering or encoding without dedicated hardware. For startups, adopting soft microprocessors in FPGA prototyping significantly reduces hardware costs by eliminating early ASIC fabrication expenses and leveraging reconfigurable platforms for validation, thereby accelerating market entry and minimizing risks. Emerging trends point to expanded use of soft microprocessors on FPGAs for AI model prototyping, capitalizing on their reprogrammability to implement low-latency inference and custom accelerators. FPGAs' logic fabric, akin to neural interconnections, supports rapid iteration of AI workloads in edge applications, with software frameworks like enabling non-experts to prototype efficiently. This flexibility is poised to drive adoption in sectors requiring adaptive AI hardware, such as industrial automation and autonomous systems.

Comparison with Hard Microprocessors

Performance and Resource Usage

Soft microprocessors typically achieve clock frequencies in the range of 150-400 MHz when implemented on mid-range FPGAs such as the Artix-7, depending on the core configuration, synthesis options, and target device. For instance, the V microcontroller preset operates at around 156 MHz on an Artix-7 XC7A200T device, while the real-time preset runs at 119 MHz and more feature-rich application presets at 109 MHz due to increased logic complexity. Similarly, the processor can reach 140-400 MHz for the /f variant and 160-410 MHz for the /e variant on devices like Cyclone V, though benchmarks are often reported at 100 MHz. Resource usage varies significantly with core variants, balancing performance against area efficiency. The MicroBlaze V real-time preset consumes approximately 4,106 LUTs and 2,685 FFs on Artix-7, whereas the economy-oriented microcontroller preset uses only 2,236 LUTs and 1,138 FFs. In contrast, the Nios II/e economy core requires approximately 300-800 logic elements (LEs) depending on the target FPGA, compared to the Nios II/f fast variant, which uses 700-2,300 LEs with features like caching enabled. These figures highlight how basic 32-bit soft cores generally occupy 2-10% of a mid-range FPGA's logic resources, leaving ample capacity for peripherals. Performance metrics, such as DMIPS/MHz ratings, range from 0.1 to 1.4 for basic soft cores, with higher-end variants like Nios II/f achieving about 0.75 DMIPS/MHz and around 1.0-1.4 DMIPS/MHz in optimized setups. Benchmark results further illustrate this: the Nios II/f scores approximately 229 iterations at 100 MHz (yielding ~2.3 CoreMark/MHz), while achieves around 2.0 CoreMark/MHz across similar evaluations. Power consumption for a 32-bit soft core at 150 MHz typically falls between 0.5-2 W, influenced by activity factors and FPGA process node. Several factors impact these metrics, including FPGA fabric density and synthesis optimization levels. Denser FPGAs like Artix-7 enable higher clock rates by providing more routing resources, but area-optimized synthesis may reduce frequency by 20-30% compared to speed-optimized flows to minimize LUT usage. Comparisons between cores reveal trade-offs: outperforms in pipelined workloads (e.g., 10-20% higher /MHz with caching), but offers better configurability for real-time applications at similar resource costs. Additionally, (CDC) introduces overheads, potentially reducing effective throughput by 5-15% due to delays in multi-clock designs. In comparison to hard microprocessors, soft cores lag in raw performance; for example, hard embedded processors like the Cortex-M4 can achieve over 1 GHz clock speeds, approximately 1.25 DMIPS/MHz, and power consumption under 100 mW in similar applications, benefiting from dedicated silicon optimization. As of 2024, newer soft cores like Intel's Nios V ( based) push boundaries, achieving up to 410 MHz with over 2.5 /MHz in optimized configurations on modern FPGAs, narrowing the gap with hard cores in flexibility-driven designs.
Core VariantClock Frequency (MHz)LUT/FF Usage (Artix-7/Cyclone equiv.)CoreMark/MHzPower Estimate (W at 150 MHz)
MicroBlaze V (Real-time)1194,106 LUTs / 2,685 FFs~2.00.5-1.0
Nios II/f (Fast)140-400700-2,300 LEs~2.30.5-2.0
Nios II/e (Economy)160-410300-800 LEs~0.20.3-1.0

Flexibility and Customization

Soft microprocessors offer significant flexibility through customization techniques that allow designers to tailor the processor to specific application needs, such as integrating FPGA-specific peripherals like hardware multipliers to accelerate operations or parameterizing the core for domain-specific accelerators, including units for secure . These approaches enable the addition of custom instructions directly in-line with the processor , optimizing for targeted workloads without relying solely on software implementations. For instance, commercial cores like and support such parameterizations, allowing seamless integration of accelerators for tasks like encryption algorithms. Reconfigurability further enhances adaptability, with partial reconfiguration enabling runtime modifications to portions of the FPGA fabric while the system remains operational, facilitating dynamic changes to processor components or peripherals. In multi-core setups, this technique allows multiple soft processor instances to share FPGA resources efficiently, swapping configurations as needed to balance workloads or adapt to varying computational demands. Such capabilities are particularly valuable in RISC-V-based soft processors, where hardware and software mechanisms simplify the reconfiguration process for evolving system requirements. The ecosystem surrounding soft microprocessors benefits from extensive IP reuse provided by FPGA vendors, who offer pre-verified processor cores and peripherals that can be instantiated and interconnected within design tools like or Quartus. Open-source projects amplify this extensibility; for example, the architecture permits modifications to its (ISA) and the addition of custom peripherals, enabling developers to extend the core for specialized instructions or interfaces. This combination of vendor-supplied and community-driven IP fosters rapid prototyping and innovation by allowing reuse of modular components across diverse FPGA platforms. Long-term advantages include simplified upgrades through bitstream updates, which reprogram the FPGA to incorporate new features or fixes without the need for costly silicon respins required in hard processor designs. This approach supports environments, where soft microprocessors coexist with custom accelerators on the same device, enabling iterative enhancements and adaptability to future standards via reconfiguration rather than hardware replacement. In contrast, hard microprocessors offer fixed architectures with superior performance density but limited post-fabrication changes, making soft cores preferable for prototyping and low-volume custom applications.

References

  1. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4243676
  2. https://www.eetimes.com/four-soft-core-processors-for-embedded-systems/
  3. https://www.design-reuse.com/news/202508910-free-sparc-processor-developer-goes-commercial-/
  4. https://www.design-reuse.com/news/202507554--altera-introduces-nios-ii-integrated-development-environment/
  5. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10941152/
  6. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1629-microblaze-v-user-guide
  7. http://reds.heig-vd.ch/share/cours/reco/documents/soft_core_processors.pdf
  8. https://ijret.org/volumes/2015v04/i24/IJRET20150424006.pdf
  9. https://www.eetimes.com/fpga-soft-processor-design-considerations/
  10. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5960823/
  11. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug984-vivado-microblaze-ref
  12. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683632/24-1/overview.html
  13. https://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~steffan/papers/cases08.pdf
  14. https://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~steffan/papers/cases05.pdf
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/embedded-processor
  16. https://nachiket.github.io/publications/idea-analysis_fpt2014.pdf
  17. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/context/theses/article/1843/viewcontent/Vivek_Jayakrishnan_Final_Thesis.pdf
  18. https://www.embedded.com/basics-of-core-based-fpga-design-part-1-core-types-trade-offs/
  19. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6893227/
  20. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4110184/
  21. https://pretopia.net/files/paper_softcores.pdf
  22. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06483
  23. https://docs.amd.com/r/2024.1-English/ug984-vivado-microblaze-ref/Maximum-Frequencies
  24. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683632/24-1/processor-performance-benchmarks-96891.html
  25. https://asee-ncs.org/proceedings/2019/1/6.pdf
  26. https://docs.amd.com/r/2024.1-English/ug984-vivado-microblaze-ref/Resource-Utilization
  27. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/4/781
  28. https://www.eetimes.com/cycle-accurate-8088-8086-soft-processor-core-consumes-only-308-fpga-luts/
  29. https://fpga.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/reconfig-14-the-past-and-future-of-fpga-soft-processors.pdf
  30. https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1803.06617
  31. https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol103No13/16Vol103No13.pdf
  32. https://cdrdv2-public.intel.com/654336/ds_exckit.pdf
  33. https://bears.ece.ucsb.edu/class/ece253/xilinx_documentation/mb_ref_guide.pdf
  34. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683620/current/nios-ii-versions.html
  35. https://www.amd.com/content/dam/xilinx/support/documents/sw_manuals/xilinx2021_2/ug984-vivado-microblaze-ref.pdf
  36. https://semiengineering.com/open-source-processors-fact-or-fiction/
  37. http://microelectronics.esa.int/finalreport/FR-RV4S-FR-0013-i1r0.pdf
  38. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/programmable/support-resources/design-guidance/nios-ii-bare-metal-developer.html
  39. https://www.amd.com/en/products/software/adaptive-socs-and-fpgas/microblaze-v.html
  40. https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Using-Open-Source-Software-to-Build-an-Industrial-grade-Embedded-Linux-Platform-from-Scratch-OSSJ.pdf
  41. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/781327/intel-is-discontinuing-ip-ordering-codes-listed-in-pdn2312-for-nios-ii-ip.html
  42. https://www.altera.com/products/ip/a1jui0000049uvama2/nios-v-processors
  43. https://www.amd.com/en/products/adaptive-socs-and-fpgas/intellectual-property/microblazecore.html
  44. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683242/current/nios-ii-custom-instruction-overview.html
  45. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1629-microblaze-v-user-guide/Pipeline-Architecture
  46. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug984-vivado-microblaze-ref/Branch-Target-Cache
  47. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1629-microblaze-v-user-guide/Virtual-Memory-Management
  48. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jvlsi/papers/vol2-issue4/G0244346.pdf
  49. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1579-microblaze-embedded-design/AXI-and-ACE-Interfaces
  50. https://www.amd.com/en/products/adaptive-socs-and-fpgas/intellectual-property/picoblaze.html
  51. https://www.amd.com/en/products/software/adaptive-socs-and-fpgas/microblaze.html
  52. https://cdrdv2-public.intel.com/759484/nios-v-processors-for-agilex-5-fpgas-e-series-technology-brief.pdf
  53. https://www.stuffedcow.net/files/henry-thesis-phd.pdf
  54. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug986-vivado-tutorial-implementation/Step-2-Synthesizing-Implementing-and-Generating-the-Bitstream
  55. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683697/19-3/software-and-hardware-dsp-design-flows.html
  56. https://vhdlwhiz.com/terminology/bitstream/
  57. https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32
  58. https://hpcas.inesc-id.pt/~handle/papers/MSc_JoaoRodrigues_2019.pdf
  59. https://www.aldec.com/en/solutions/functional_verification--fpga-verification-tools
  60. https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/eda-design/verification/clock-domain-crossing/
  61. https://www.synopsys.com/verification/static-and-formal-verification/spyglass/spyglass-fpga.html
  62. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/8/1834
  63. https://www.freertos.org/Documentation/02-Kernel/03-Supported-devices/00-Supported-devices
  64. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683634/21-2/using-linux-or-rtos.html
  65. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.8/nios2/nios2.html
  66. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/20/4255
  67. https://cdrdv2-public.intel.com/650508/wp-01247-improving-battery-management-system-performance-and-cost.pdf
  68. https://www.hackster.io/news/not-too-big-not-too-tiny-the-just-right-size-16-bit-neo430-processor-0033f118445e
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324693171_FPGA_Prototyping_of_Micro-Blaze_soft-processor_based_Multi-core_System_on_Chip
  70. https://www.einfochips.com/resources/publications/fpga-prototyping-trends-and-challenges/
  71. https://peer.asee.org/introducing-laboratories-with-soft-processor-cores-using-fpgas-into-the-computer-engineering-curriculum.pdf
  72. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/learn/fpga-for-ai.html
  73. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1629-microblaze-v-user-guide/Resource-Utilization
  74. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683629/current/performance-benchmarks.html
  75. https://www.eembc.org/techlit/articles/coremark-whitepaper.pdf
  76. https://www.jblopen.com/microblaze-benchmarks-part-1-coremark-performance/
  77. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6355862/
  78. https://www.design-reuse.com/article/58358-fpga-soft-processor-design-considerations/
  79. https://angl-dev.github.io/assets/pdfs/HPCA23_Ang_Li.pdf
  80. https://developer.arm.com/ip-products/processors/cortex-m/cortex-m4
  81. https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-cpu/cortex-m/cortex-m4
  82. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/fpga/development-tools/nios-v.html
  83. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1117201.1117231
  84. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683689/current/fpgas-and-soft-core-processors.html
  85. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9460688
  86. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5694264
  87. https://opencores.org/projects/or1k
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.