The document compares Von Neumann and Harvard architectures, highlighting that Von Neumann uses a single memory for data and instructions with sequential execution, making it simpler and cost-effective but prone to bottlenecks. In contrast, Harvard architecture employs separate memories for data and instructions, allowing for parallel execution and higher performance, especially in specialized tasks. The choice between the two architectures depends on application needs, balancing flexibility with performance.

1. Computer Organization & Assembly Language
Muhammad Zohaib Aslam - CS211019
VON NEUMANN VS.
HARVARD
ARCHITECTURE

2. Von Neumann Architecture:
Single memory for data and instructions.
Sequential execution.
Simple and cost-effective.
Harvard Architecture:
Separate memory for data and instructions.
Parallel execution.
Higher performance in specialized tasks.
INTRODUCTION TO
ARCHITECTURES

3. Memory Organization:
Von Neumann: Shared memory.
Harvard: Separate memories.
Bus System:
Von Neumann: Single bus.
Harvard: Separate buses.
COMPARISON OF MEMORY &
BUS SYSTEMS

4. Von Neumann:
Potential bottleneck due to shared bus.
Common in general-purpose computers.
Harvard:
Higher efficiency due to parallel access.
Used in embedded systems and DSPs.
PERFORMANCE AND
APPLICATION

5. Von Neumann Pros:
Simpler, cost-effective, flexible.
Von Neumann Cons:
Bottleneck, slower memory
access.
PROS AND CONS

6. PROS AND CONS
Harvard Pros:
Faster, specialized, reduced
bottlenecks.
Harvard Cons:
Complex, costly, less flexible.

7. Von Neumann: Simple, cost-effective, but can have
performance bottlenecks.
Harvard: High performance, efficient, but more
complex and costly.
Key Takeaway: Choice depends on the
application’s needs—flexibility vs. performance.
Final Thought: Understanding both is essential for
optimized system design.
CONCLUSION