It can be seen from Table 1 thatthe two proposed LCFFs have a
significant benefit in terms of delay. Among them, compared with the
remaining six LCFFs, the average delay of DBS-LCFFCC decreases by
57.8%, 8.6%, 39.2%, 11.9%, 31%, and 15%, respectively, while the
average delay of DBS-LCFFP decreases by 72.2%, 39.9%, 60%, 42%,
54.6%, and 44.1%, respectively. In addition, the delay of DBS-LCFFP is
less than DBS-LCFFCC, which is consistent with our previous analysis.
These LCFFs were also simulated under different switching activities α
to measure their power consumption, and the results are shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9 indicates that the proposed DBS-LCFFCC has the lowest power
consumption under arbitrary switching activities α because it adopts the
conditional discharging technique and employs the minimum number of
transistors. Furthermore, the power consumption of DBS-LCFFP is not as
efficient when α is less than 50%, while it is only higher than the
DBS-LCFFCC when the α is 100% because the extra short-circuit power
consumption of the DBS-LCFFP outweighs the power savings from the
transistors reduction when the switching activity is relatively low.