This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
1. Article is not wikified 2. There are no footnotes, just a pile of references with numbers that match with ... nothing 3. Sections are plagiarized from the sources. If these are written for Wikipedia, they should be run through WikisourcePenguinwithin (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, maybe it should be placed somewhere it is better visible. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
--Rkg82 (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Update to commercial deployment of NoC technology--Rkg82 (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Reference to prototypes is completely out of date. At least one silicon-proven NoC was integrated on a video chip being sold in 2008 (Pixelworks), and currently (Oct 2010) a number of chips are being sold with commercially available NoC inside, both to equipement manufacturers and the general public. One example is the latest rabge of Epson Video projectors, launched in 2009-2010.
This whole statement seems to be rife with network guru jargon, buzz terms and a lack of justification, can we rewrite this or delete it? Although NoCs can borrow concepts and techniques from the well-established domain of computer networking, it is impractical to blindly reuse features of "classical" computer networks and symmetric multiprocessors. In particular, NoC switches should be small, energy-efficient, and fast. Neglecting these aspects along with proper, quantitative comparison was typical for early NoC research but nowadays they are considered in more detail. The routing algorithms should be implemented by simple logic, and the number of data buffers should be minimal. Network topology and execution properties may be application-specific on MPSoCs. 21 June 2016 - reterik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - It appears from a very cursory Google search or two that "Network-on-Chip" is actually the most common rendering. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
But I can live with Network on chip if there's objection. In my work with engineers' text, I've found the "a" far more common in this group of items, with the Lab on a chip the stand-out.
Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles, such as System on a chip.
As a side question, I'd have thought the hyphens were unnecessary in this cluster of terms (sister terms are hyphenated in the opening para here, for example). Tony(talk) 14:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Support – with or without "a", but lowercase, no hyphens. The hyphen are common in the adjective form, as in "network-on-a-chip approach" and "network-on-chip technology". But I agree we don't need them in the noun-form title or the lead sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, unless there's objection here over the next few days, I'll fix them up in the main texts in this cluster of articles. Tony(talk) 09:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Support to be consistent with system on a chip as well, which is probably more common than this term. And of course the Grandiose Capital Letter Style needs to go. W Nowicki (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.