4 ms·

We are also talking about a product that is directed towards people interested in 8-bit computers, machines from an era where custom chips were somewhat less co

by II2II 4y ago

We are also talking about a product that is directed towards people interested in 8-bit computers, machines from an era where custom chips were somewhat less common (at least towards the start of that era). If their customers are looking for a computer that operates in terms they understand, an FPGA is basically a non-starter. Also worth considering is that the CPUs themselves are often still available, so what is the incentive to stuff the CPU into an FPGA? Video chips are more difficult to come by, so many projects have to make some sort of compromise.

justin66 4y ago
> If their customers are looking for a computer that operates in terms they understand, an FPGA is basically a non-starter. I'm certain that anyone capable of really understanding the operation of an 8-bit machine without an FPGA is capable of understanding the operation of one with an FPGA. There are tools for programming an FPGA that someone who previously assembled their own boards might not want to learn about, but it's not like they're going to be baffled by them. I think what's happening here is people want to make and use something with period-correct physical parts for purely aesthetic, nostalgic reasons. I really think that is fine, it's the strangely inaccurate way some people refer to FPGAs that is irksome. > Video chips are more difficult to come by, so many projects have to make some sort of compromise. This use of the word "compromise" illustrates the priority aesthetics takes in these projects. The video chip based on a modern microcontroller isn't really the compromise, in engineering terms the fact that you're not using a board with fewer parts and lower power consumption that emulates a z80 on that microcontroller (or something) is the compromise. > Also worth considering is that the CPUs themselves are often still available, so what is the incentive to stuff the CPU into an FPGA? Potential ability to make a CPU with a higher clock rate and a board with fewer parts, and all the other reasons you'd use an FPGA.

by II2II 4y ago

justin66 4y ago

> If their customers are looking for a computer that operates in terms they understand, an FPGA is basically a non-starter. I'm certain that anyone capable of really understanding the operation of an 8-bit machine without an FPGA is capable of understanding the operation of one with an FPGA. There are tools for programming an FPGA that someone who previously assembled their own boards might not want to learn about, but it's not like they're going to be baffled by them. I think what's happening here is people want to make and use something with period-correct physical parts for purely aesthetic, nostalgic reasons. I really think that is fine, it's the strangely inaccurate way some people refer to FPGAs that is irksome. > Video chips are more difficult to come by, so many projects have to make some sort of compromise. This use of the word "compromise" illustrates the priority aesthetics takes in these projects. The video chip based on a modern microcontroller isn't really the compromise, in engineering terms the fact that you're not using a board with fewer parts and lower power consumption that emulates a z80 on that microcontroller (or something) is the compromise. > Also worth considering is that the CPUs themselves are often still available, so what is the incentive to stuff the CPU into an FPGA? Potential ability to make a CPU with a higher clock rate and a board with fewer parts, and all the other reasons you'd use an FPGA.