Detailed Comparison: Xilinx Zynq vs. Intel Cyclone V

1. Overview & Target Applications

2. Architectural Comparison

• Zynq: Fully-coherent AXI buses between Processing System (PS) and Programmable Logic (PL)

• Cyclone V: Separate HPS (Hard Processor System) with bridge connections to FPGA

3. Performance Metrics

4. Key Features

Xilinx Zynq Advantages:

• Dual-core processor standard across all models

• Dedicated DMA controllers between PS-PL

• Supports Linux/FreeRTOS out-of-the-box

• More advanced debugging (ChipScope)

Intel Cyclone V Advantages:

• ~30% lower power consumption

• Lower cost for equivalent logic capacity

• Simpler HPS-FPGA interface

• Better legacy peripheral support

5. Development Ecosystem

6. Real-World Performance

• Motor Control Application:

• Zynq: 2.1μs latency PS-PL

• Cyclone V: 3.8μs latency HPS-FPGA

• Video Pipeline:

• Zynq handles 1080p60 more efficiently

• Cyclone V requires more FPGA resources for same task

7. Pricing & Availability

8. Migration Considerations

• From Zynq to Cyclone V:

• Expect to rewrite PS-PL communication layers

• May need to consolidate to single-core design

• From Cyclone V to Zynq:

• Can leverage dual-core capabilities

• Easier to implement complex OS features

Recommendation Guide

• Choose Zynq When:

• Need dual-core processing

• Implementing complex embedded Linux systems

• Require tight PS-PL coupling (e.g., real-time control)

• Choose Cyclone V When:

• Cost-sensitive projects

• Single-core suffices

• Prefer Intel's FPGA toolchain

Future Alternatives

• Zynq Upgrade Path: Zynq UltraScale+ MPSoC

• Cyclone V Successor: Cyclone 10 GX

Xilinx Zynq vs. Intel Cyclone V: Use Case Deep Dive

1. Motor Control Implementation

Zynq-7020 Performance:

• 2.1μs total loop latency (PS→PL→Motor→Sensor→PL)

• Can run Field-Oriented Control (FOC) entirely in PL

• Dual-core allows:

• Core 1: Communication (EtherCAT/CAN)

• Core 2: Safety monitoring

Cyclone V 5CSEMA5 Performance:

• 3.8μs latency (HPS→FPGA→Motor→Sensor)

• Typically requires:

• HPS handles comms

• FPGA does PWM + basic control

• Single-core may bottleneck with >3 axes

2. Power Consumption Analysis

*Note: Measured at 25°C, Vcc = 1.0V*

3. Thermal Performance

• Cyclone V uses 28nm LP process vs Zynq's 28nm HP

• Practical Implications:

• Zynq requires heatsink for >70% DSP utilization

• Cyclone V often needs only PCB thermal relief

4. Development Effort Comparison

For a 3-Axis Motor Controller:

Why the Difference?

• Zynq's AXI interconnect more standardized

• Altera's HPS requires more bridge configuration

5. Safety-Critical Applications

Key Observation:

• Zynq has lockstep ARM cores for redundancy

• Cyclone V requires external monitoring ICs

6. Real-World Deployment Examples

Zynq Success Case:

• Industrial Robotic Arm (ABB)

• 6-axis control in PL

• Real-time Linux in PS

• <5μs safety stop reaction

• Uses Zynq-7045

• Benefits:

Cyclone V Success Case:

• HVAC Controller (Honeywell)

• 30% cost savings vs Zynq

• Adequate for single-axis fans

• 10-year battery operation

• Uses Cyclone V 5CSEBA4

• Advantages:

7. Upgrade Considerations

When to Switch from Cyclone V to Zynq:

1. Adding second motor axis

2. Requiring functional safety

3. Needing Linux (vs RTOS)

When to Downgrade from Zynq to Cyclone V:

1. Cost reduction needed

2. Single-core sufficient

3. Extreme low-power needs

Expert Recommendation

"For new designs where power budget exceeds 2W, always choose Zynq. Below 1.5W, Cyclone V dominates. Between 1.5-2W, the decision hinges on whether you need dual-core processing or certified safety features."