AC7t800 vs XCZU42DR
A comparison of the Achronix Speedster7t AC7t800 and the AMD Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC XCZU42DR using the data from both vendors' selection guides.
Side-by-side specifications
| AC7t800 | XCZU42DR | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor / family | Achronix Speedster7t | AMD Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC |
| LUTs as published | 326,000 LUT6 | 224,000 LUT6 |
| LUT type | 6-input look-up table, fracturable into two LUT5 with shared inputs | 6-input look-up table, fracturable into two LUT5 with shared inputs |
| LUT4 equivalent (approx.) | ≈521,600 | ≈358,400 |
| CoreScore (SERV cores) | — | — |
| Vendor logic figure | 730,000 LC | 489,000 SLC |
| DSP | 864 MLPs | 1,872 DSP slices |
| Block RAM | 82.9 Mb | 22.8 Mb |
| Large RAM | — | 45 Mb |
| Max. user I/O | — | 152 |
| Transceivers | 24 × SerDes 112 Gb/s | 8 × GTY 28.21 Gb/s |
| Hard PCI Express | Gen5 x16 | None |
| Hard processor | None | 4× Arm Cortex-A53 |
| Process | 7 nm | 16 nm |
| Configuration memory | SRAM | SRAM |
| Packages | 0 | 1 |
| Design tool | Achronix Tool Suite | AMD Vivado |
Highlighted values are higher. LUT counts are shown as published; the LUT4 equivalent is an approximation to compare different LUT types, see how FPGA vendors count logic. Add up to two more devices to this comparison.
Key differences
The AC7t800 has about 46% more logic capacity (522K vs 358K LUT4 equivalents).
For arithmetic, the XCZU42DR has 1,872 DSP slices against 864 MLPs on the AC7t800.
The AC7t800 has more on-chip memory (82.9 Mb vs 67.8 Mb).
Both have transceivers: 24 at up to 112 Gb/s on the AC7t800 and 8 at up to 28.21 Gb/s on the XCZU42DR.
The XCZU42DR includes a hard Arm Cortex-A53 processor, while the AC7t800 does not.
The AC7t800 is designed with Achronix Tool Suite and the XCZU42DR with AMD Vivado.
Full specifications
See the complete spec sheets with packages and grades: AC7t800 (Speedster7t) and XCZU42DR (Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC).