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.