4 ms·
> FPGAs excel in parallelizing very simple operations. I don't think that's a good characterization. FPGA are good at what they end up being programmed for. An
by soulbadguy 3y ago
> FPGAs excel in parallelizing very simple operations.
I don't think that's a good characterization. FPGA are good at what they end up being programmed for. And in the final analysis, everything a chip does is broken down to simple operation.
The FPGA selling point has always been around perf/W and efficiency with regard to a "set of task". An ASIC will always be faster for a specific task, and CPU will always be faster on average on everything. However, when considering say "compression" or "check-sum" as general class of algorithm, and FPGA with a set of predefined configuration could be better and cheaper.
- 70rd 3y agoGood at what they're being programmed for is a bit of tautology. FPGAs being selected for performance per watt was only a fairly recent phenomenon, when they were deployed on semi large scale as password crackers/cryptocurrency miners. Their real strength is ultimately real time processing (DSP or networking), with reconfigurability often quite valuable for networking applications. For DSP applications it's usually because a MOQ of custom silicon can't be justified.