PPA at System Level — Inputs & Outputs

Inputs required

• Product workload/performance targets and use-case priority matrix

• Initial hierarchy partition and IP capability assumptions

• Technology/node assumptions and package/power-delivery constraints

• Verification plan and scenario coverage priorities

Outputs produced

• Signed PPA budget table by block and mode

• Risk register mapping each aggressive target to mitigation owner

• Architecture-to-implementation acceptance criteria for each milestone

Handoff owners

• architecture owner

• performance lead

• RTL / verification / software owner as needed

Production handoff contract

Treat PPA at System Level inputs as a signed contract between architecture, RTL, verification, software, performance, PD, and product owners. A 10+ year engineer blocks decisions when the contract is ambiguous instead of burning weeks on invalid comparisons.

HANDOFF MANIFEST
  workload_suite: <benchmarks, traces, production scenarios>
  model_tag: <spreadsheet / simulator / RTL / emulation / silicon tag>
  metric_contract: <IPC, MPKI, bandwidth, latency, power, area>
  architecture_assumptions: <cache sizes, line size, NoC topology, coherency mode>
  owner_of_truth: <architecture / performance / RTL / software owner>
  known_risks: <unmodeled effects, missing workloads, verification concerns>

Senior acceptance rules

1. Reject mismatched workload, model, PMU, or RTL tags before comparing metrics.

2. Record the owner for every assumption that is not locally provable.

3. Preserve enough metadata that another engineer can reproduce the experiment in six months.

Architecture input diagram

INPUT CONTRACT

workload suite ─┐
PMU / trace  ───┼──► architecture analysis ──► decision memo
RTL/model tag ──┤
PPA budgets  ───┤
SW contract  ───┘

Missing any one input changes the meaning of the metric.

Architecture deep dive

Chip architecture signoff is a negotiated PPA contract across teams.

Concept diagram

PPA NEGOTIATION MAP

Architecture target
   │
   ├─ Performance: IPC, latency, bandwidth, QoS
   ├─ Power: dynamic, leakage, thermal envelope
   ├─ Area: SRAM, logic, NoC links, floorplan
   ├─ Verification: state space, tests, formal complexity
   └─ PD: timing, placement, macro distance, routing channels

A staff architect makes the trade visible before it becomes a crisis.

Metric graph

PPA OPTION CHART

Option          Perf      Power     Area      Risk
A wider core    +++       ---       --        high
B better cache  ++        -         --        med
C SW locality   +         +         0         med
D NoC QoS       +         -         -         low

Pick based on product objective, not elegance.

Metrics and artifacts

• PPA dashboard

• floorplan distance budget

• NoC BW matrix

• verification closure status

Mini case study

CPU–memory macro distance violated latency budget — architecture accepted lower CPU frequency rather than respin floorplan one week before tapeout.

Debug branches

• If PD pushes back, bring numeric latency/power models not opinions.

• If signoff yellow, document owner, mitigation, and decision date.

Senior review question

Ask: what single metric would prove this concept is working or failing on your workload?

Key takeaways

• Connect every architecture claim to a workload and measurable metric.

• State verification and PPA impact before proposing design changes.

Common pitfalls

• Feature-driven design without MPKI/IPC/bandwidth evidence.

• Ignoring coherency and NoC traffic in cache and accelerator sizing.

Study notes

Re-read this topic with one concrete workload.