4 ms·
This semantic argument that "is FPGA a real hardware" is pointless. All the same arguments that the "software" side can produce are also applicable for, say, a
by sklogic 10y ago
This semantic argument that "is FPGA a real hardware" is pointless. All the same arguments that the "software" side can produce are also applicable for, say, a circuit built on a breadboard. Is this circuit not a "real circuit", but a "software" for some weird reason? And if not, stop calling FPGA bitfiles a "software".
- nickpsecurity 10y agoThere's whole papers in CompSci on why FPGA's aren't ASIC's and many FPGA-to-ASIC conversions failed to achieve their objectives. They really are different enough to warrant a distinction. I'd just call them bitstreams instead of software, though, given software usually gives implication of instructions a la x86 running on fixed HW. I mean, technically that's what FPGA's and bitstreams are but world of difference in meaning. It starts getting extra muddy when we're talking anti-fuse FPGA's where it runs software exactly once then becomes hardware. ;) Still significant logical, structural, and so on differences from ASIC's or TTL designs to not consider HDL-to-FPGA to be same as making, esp manufacturing or wiring up, those.
- sklogic 10y agoFPGA to an ASIC is sort of like a breadboard to a PCB. A direct translation does not make much sense for the latter as well.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoPoint being the structures and underlying workings of FPGA doing things vs an ASIC are really different. A person who can FPGA-prove something can't necessarily put that specific design on a 350nm node. Surely not on deep sub-micron. The FPGA won't even run by itself in the development configuration. Stand-alone FPGA boards with the stuff flashed or whatever is closer to building some hardware. It's still only a subset of skill required, though.