In answer to John's question:

The design estimates for ROACH (which were worst case from the point of view of
the FPGA) are as follows:

Voltage         Total currents          Rail Power
12                      3.36            40.36
5                       6.78            33.91
3.3                     3.47            11.45
2.5                     3.56            8.89
1.8                     12.91           23.24
1.5                     6.77            10.15
1.2                     0.49            0.59
1                       26.79           26.79
0.9                     1.87            1.68
0.75                    1.14            0.86

The rails from the supply (12V, 5V and 3.3V) include the power for any
regulation, so the total is obtained by adding the power for those three rails
only.  Total comes to about 86W.  There is also a maximum of 5W on the standby.

For line power, the efficiency of the supply needs to be included. For the
Sunpower SPX-6200A1, this is quoted as 70% typical.

For those doing their own ADC's, these figures include two ADC's, which were
rated as below (both units):

Voltage (V)     Current (A)
5               0.8
3.3             2
2.5             0.5
1.8             0.5

If using the specified Sunpower supply the design allows the following margins
on the rails available shared between the Z-DOK connectors:

Voltage (V)     Spare Current Capacity (A)      Limiting Factor
5               5                               Current through power switch
3.3             7.5                             Current through power switch
2.5             2.4                             2.5V Regulator
1.8             3                               1.8V Regulator

As far as I know, no-one has yet come close to these figures - it would be
interesting to hear from someone who has!

-Francois


John Ford wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> Has anyone measured (or calculated...) the maximum power consumption of a
> ROACH with a full SX95 chip?
> 
> Anyone hazard an estimate, if not a measurement or calculation?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to