GW1N-9 vs XC6SLX9
A comparison of the Gowin LittleBee GW1N-9 and the AMD Spartan-6 XC6SLX9 using the data from both vendors' selection guides.
Side-by-side specifications
| GW1N-9 | XC6SLX9 | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor / family | Gowin LittleBee | AMD Spartan-6 |
| LUTs as published | 8,640 LUT4 | 5,720 LUT6 |
| LUT type | 4-input look-up table | 6-input look-up table, fracturable into two LUT5 with shared inputs |
| LUT4 equivalent (approx.) | ≈8,640 | ≈9,152 |
| CoreScore (SERV cores) | — | — |
| Vendor logic figure | — | 9,152 LC |
| DSP | 20 18×18 multipliers | 16 DSP48A1 slices |
| Block RAM | 0.5 Mb | 0.6 Mb |
| Large RAM | — | — |
| Max. user I/O | 276 | 200 |
| Transceivers | None | None |
| Hard PCI Express | None | None |
| Hard processor | None | None |
| Process | 55 nm | 45 nm |
| Configuration memory | Embedded flash | SRAM |
| Packages | 19 | 5 |
| Design tool | Gowin EDA | AMD ISE Design Suite |
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
Both devices offer similar logic capacity: 8.6K and 9.2K LUT4 equivalents.
They use different logic architectures: the GW1N-9 is built from LUT4 and the XC6SLX9 from LUT6, so the raw LUT counts (8.6K vs 5.7K) are not directly comparable.
For arithmetic, the GW1N-9 has 20 18×18 multipliers against 16 DSP48A1 slices on the XC6SLX9.
The XC6SLX9 has more on-chip memory (0.6 Mb vs 0.5 Mb).
Configuration memory: embedded flash on the GW1N-9, sram on the XC6SLX9.
The GW1N-9 is designed with Gowin EDA; open source: Yosys + nextpnr-himbaechel with Project Apicula and the XC6SLX9 with AMD ISE Design Suite.
Full specifications
See the complete spec sheets with packages and grades: GW1N-9 (LittleBee) and XC6SLX9 (Spartan-6).