Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: a single flip-flop and a gate
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Ripple (asynchronous) counters suffer cumulative delays because each flip-flop toggles the next. Synchronous counters clock all flip-flops in parallel, so the long chain of sequential delays is eliminated. Understanding what limits timing in the synchronous case is key to high-speed design.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
In a synchronous counter, on the clock edge, all FFs update simultaneously with a clock-to-Q delay (tCQ). The decode or next-state decision typically passes through a small amount of combinational logic before being observed externally or used internally. Hence, the effective delay is dominated by a single FF delay plus the propagation of a small gate network, not a cascade of FF-to-FF delays.
Step-by-Step Solution:
At CLK edge → FF outputs update after tCQ.Signals then propagate through minimal combinational gates (e.g., increment logic, decode).The critical path is approximately tCQ + tGate.Therefore, the delay is effectively that of a single flip-flop and a gate.
Verification / Alternative check:
Timing diagrams and datasheets for synchronous counters (e.g., 74161) show specified clock-to-output and decode delays, without per-stage rippling as in 7490/7493 ripple counters.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming synchronous counters eliminate all delay; they reduce chain delay but still exhibit tCQ and small logic delay.
Final Answer:
a single flip-flop and a gate
Discussion & Comments