[content] => 
    [params] => Array
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/scoreboard-in-verification.974/

    [addOns] => Array
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021270
            [XFI] => 1050270

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html

Scoreboard in verification

Recently while reviewing a test bench architecture with a group of verification engineers, an inveterate though interesting debate started. The engineer proposing the verification plan had ‘scoreboard’ as well as ‘checkers’ as two different components in his test bench. The debate was on the clear definition of these 2 terminologies as every engineer had his own understanding of these words. Though various verification methodologies have termed the test bench components differently, still names like driver, bfm, generator and sequencer etc. reveal a lot about their functionality with the exception of scoreboard</SPAN>. Engineers across the globe have varied opinion on the history of this term and its origin as a verification component is untraceable.
Here is a quick preview of the various definitions of ‘what is a scoreboard’</SPAN>?</SPAN>


I think of a "checker" as a set of assertions. In fact, the System Verilog IEEE1800-2009 spec adds a new construct called "checker" which is essentially a container for a group of associated assertions.

A "scoreboard" is more of a model vs. DUT output, possibly at a higher layer than a set of interface protocol checkers, for example.

I think scoreboards and checkers are different but with a lot of overlap.