3 ms·

FPGA is a simulation, not an emulation. Emulation does everything serially while simulation does everything in parallel, just like the real hardware. Also, sof

FPGA is a simulation, not an emulation. Emulation does everything serially while simulation does everything in parallel, just like the real hardware. Also, software emulation on a non-real-time OS such as Windows, macOS or Linux can result in lag when the OS is busy with other things. You never get that on FPGA simulation.

klodolph 4y ago
I’ve never heard that distinction before. It’s all emulation—either in hardware or software, in parallel or in series. I used to work on simulation software professionally. The idea that simulation is parallel while emulation is serial is completely foreign to me, and I suspect foreign to others as well.
- icedchai 4y ago
  It is foreign to me, for sure. I have been experimenting with FPGA-based retro systems for years (started with a MIST.) I still consider them "emulators."
- FullyFunctional 4y ago
  I have worked on simulators for most of my life and the GPs definition is not true. There's no formal distinction between the two, but conventionally emulation is more faithful whereas simulation is more high-level. Still, the two are used fairly interchangeably.
  - rusk 4y ago
    To me the distinction seems obvious: simulation reproduces the external behaviour of a system i.e from observers pov; emulation reproduces the internal behaviour. Typically the external behaviour emerges from this as a matter of course, but in many cases such a “bottom up” approach isn’t possible or even necessary.
thrtythreeforty 4y ago
I work in silicon development, and we call software models "simulation" and FPGA models "emulation." Both terms are a little arbitrary, but logic on an FPGA is not a simulation, for most definitions of "simulation." Perhaps more accurate than either term is "implementation," since it is an honest-to-God implementation in a digital circuit of the logic. Think of it this way: software tells a computer what to do, gateware tells an FPGA what to be.

klodolph 4y ago

I’ve never heard that distinction before. It’s all emulation—either in hardware or software, in parallel or in series. I used to work on simulation software professionally. The idea that simulation is parallel while emulation is serial is completely foreign to me, and I suspect foreign to others as well.

icedchai 4y ago
It is foreign to me, for sure. I have been experimenting with FPGA-based retro systems for years (started with a MIST.) I still consider them "emulators."
FullyFunctional 4y ago
I have worked on simulators for most of my life and the GPs definition is not true. There's no formal distinction between the two, but conventionally emulation is more faithful whereas simulation is more high-level. Still, the two are used fairly interchangeably.
- rusk 4y ago
  To me the distinction seems obvious: simulation reproduces the external behaviour of a system i.e from observers pov; emulation reproduces the internal behaviour. Typically the external behaviour emerges from this as a matter of course, but in many cases such a “bottom up” approach isn’t possible or even necessary.

thrtythreeforty 4y ago

I work in silicon development, and we call software models "simulation" and FPGA models "emulation." Both terms are a little arbitrary, but logic on an FPGA is not a simulation, for most definitions of "simulation." Perhaps more accurate than either term is "implementation," since it is an honest-to-God implementation in a digital circuit of the logic. Think of it this way: software tells a computer what to do, gateware tells an FPGA what to be.