6 ms·

"FPGA is emulation" You can have any number of issues with Mister, but this is just flat out incorrect if you know the definition of either of those words.

by xqzv 3y ago

thehias 3y ago
Of course Mister uses emulation - there are only few chips in older arcade boards that truly can be simulated in FPGA with circuit-accuracy. The Mister SNES core has less accuracy like the software emulator bsnes, not all game work or there a bugs - they still "emulate" the hardware how they interpret it. FPGA is just a different way of "hardware emulation" instead of traditional "software emulators". The only real advantage of FPGA compared to software is the improved latency.
- vardump 3y ago
  An FPGA can be 100% hardware perfect with practically no extra processing cost. The potential is there, even if it's not initially exploited. CPU based emulation will require a fairly powerful CPU just to emulate SNES. It's pretty expensive to emulate hardware in 180-190 ns increments.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    This isn't quite true - you lose some of the weird analog stuff that may have happened. On a well-designed board, though, you can get essentially perfect cycle-accurate reproduction.
- scientist4397 3y ago
  Not only, the ability to replicate hardware allow to render some effects that can’t be render with software emulation. I’ll try to find the video I saw on YT explaining that point.
  - mutexjp 3y ago
    Perhaps you are referring to this video [0] by What's Ken Making which goes into detail about the advantages/disadvantages of both software and hardware emulation? At 13:43, he demonstrates a couple of snes games with effects that don't work well in software emulation (along with what the effects / game mechanics should be on original hardware). At 22:25 he shows these same games running on FPGAs (analogue pocket, mister) and behaving correctly, just like on original hardware. As an aside, if this isn't the one you were referring to, it's still an awesome video by an amazing creator; I'm a big fan of this stuff after discovering it on accident. He gives a nice introduction to FPGAs in this same video. [0] https://youtu.be/sMMiBEhnizE?si=E08sfoc--NlgiqGu&t=824 https://youtu.be/sMMiBEhnizE?si=E08sfoc--NlgiqGu&t=824
chungy 3y ago
> if you know the definition of either of those words Let's put that to the test, ok https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulate 1a: "to imitate by means of an emulator" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulator https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulator 2: "hardware or software that permits programs written for one computer to be run on another computer" Yup, FPGA recreating other hardware definitely fits the bill of emulation. Granted, Analogue has played up a marketing spin that boxes in "emulation" to mean "software running on some generic CPU" in order to claim "no emulation", but it's just marketing doing the work of marketing.
- Gormo 3y ago
  > Yup, FPGA recreating other hardware definitely fits the bill of emulation. It really doesn't. The FPGA actually implements the target hardware, rather than using other hardware to produce equivalent behavior. That's not to say that no emulation is involved, as not all of the functionality is actually achieved through the FPGA, but where it is, it's perfectly valid to distinguish it from emulation.
  - cacois 3y ago
    So your argument is that its closer to virtualization, than to emulation?
    - Gormo 3y ago
      Not really. And I'm not sure the concept of virtualization makes sense when applied to hardware in the first place. The FPGA is actually implementing the hardware. It's like using a newly manufactured edition of the original.
      - fourfour3 3y ago
        The FPGA is used to implement an approximation of the original hardware’s functionality - not a perfect clone of the original hardware itself, which means they have their own unique bugs and inaccuracies compared to the original designs. I think “emulation” fits as a reasonable description of this, personally - at least as something an average person will understand.
jtvjan 3y ago
They may have read this article written by Near arguing that FPGA-based products are still (hardware-based) emulation: https://archive.is/fWosI https://archive.is/fWosI It's a well-written article, and presents a balanced view. Its stance is against the idea that FPGA-based emulation is always better than CPU-based emulation.
- pipes 3y ago
  That is a fantastic read. Thanks.
- BearOso 3y ago
  There's no circuit-level reproduction happening anywhere yet, it's basically emulation with a hardware clock. Analogue and kevtris know that FPGA isn't magic. Rather than contribute to the knowledge pool, like the MiSTer project, they're being bad actors and trying to muddle the situation to make money off of it. Near was trying to clarify the situation, but now we see where good intentions gets you.
armada651 3y ago
The argument being made is that the distinction between an FPGA and CPU is irrelevant to determine whether something is emulation. An emulator accelerated by an FPGA is still an emulator and a CPU simulating a console at the circuit level is no different in accuracy than an FPGA doing the same thing. The main difference is the experience, where the FPGA can offer an experience closer to the original than a CPU running an operating system can, especially for older consoles. Not because of a difference in emulation accuracy, but because the user experience is different.
- _factor 3y ago
  That’s just building a unit to spec using an fpga instead of a chip fab. If it’s a 1-1 copy, emulation would not appear to be the correct term. If I have a black box chip that takes in 3 bits and spits out 3 based on the input. If I make a bit perfect implement of it, but my chip has additional outputs that correspond to unused input, hence never used. Is it still considered emulation? It differs minimally in a negligible manner.

"FPGA is emulation" You can have any number of issues with Mister, but this is just flat out incorrect if you know the definition of either of those words.

by xqzv 3y ago

"FPGA is emulation" You can have any number of issues with Mister, but this is just flat out incorrect if you know the definition of either of those words.

thehias 3y ago

Of course Mister uses emulation - there are only few chips in older arcade boards that truly can be simulated in FPGA with circuit-accuracy. The Mister SNES core has less accuracy like the software emulator bsnes, not all game work or there a bugs - they still "emulate" the hardware how they interpret it. FPGA is just a different way of "hardware emulation" instead of traditional "software emulators". The only real advantage of FPGA compared to software is the improved latency.

vardump 3y ago
An FPGA can be 100% hardware perfect with practically no extra processing cost. The potential is there, even if it's not initially exploited. CPU based emulation will require a fairly powerful CPU just to emulate SNES. It's pretty expensive to emulate hardware in 180-190 ns increments.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  This isn't quite true - you lose some of the weird analog stuff that may have happened. On a well-designed board, though, you can get essentially perfect cycle-accurate reproduction.
scientist4397 3y ago
Not only, the ability to replicate hardware allow to render some effects that can’t be render with software emulation. I’ll try to find the video I saw on YT explaining that point.
- mutexjp 3y ago
  Perhaps you are referring to this video [0] by What's Ken Making which goes into detail about the advantages/disadvantages of both software and hardware emulation? At 13:43, he demonstrates a couple of snes games with effects that don't work well in software emulation (along with what the effects / game mechanics should be on original hardware). At 22:25 he shows these same games running on FPGAs (analogue pocket, mister) and behaving correctly, just like on original hardware. As an aside, if this isn't the one you were referring to, it's still an awesome video by an amazing creator; I'm a big fan of this stuff after discovering it on accident. He gives a nice introduction to FPGAs in this same video. [0] https://youtu.be/sMMiBEhnizE?si=E08sfoc--NlgiqGu&t=824 https://youtu.be/sMMiBEhnizE?si=E08sfoc--NlgiqGu&t=824

chungy 3y ago

> if you know the definition of either of those words Let's put that to the test, ok https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulate 1a: "to imitate by means of an emulator" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulator https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulator 2: "hardware or software that permits programs written for one computer to be run on another computer" Yup, FPGA recreating other hardware definitely fits the bill of emulation. Granted, Analogue has played up a marketing spin that boxes in "emulation" to mean "software running on some generic CPU" in order to claim "no emulation", but it's just marketing doing the work of marketing.

Gormo 3y ago
> Yup, FPGA recreating other hardware definitely fits the bill of emulation. It really doesn't. The FPGA actually implements the target hardware, rather than using other hardware to produce equivalent behavior. That's not to say that no emulation is involved, as not all of the functionality is actually achieved through the FPGA, but where it is, it's perfectly valid to distinguish it from emulation.
- cacois 3y ago
  So your argument is that its closer to virtualization, than to emulation?
  - Gormo 3y ago
    Not really. And I'm not sure the concept of virtualization makes sense when applied to hardware in the first place. The FPGA is actually implementing the hardware. It's like using a newly manufactured edition of the original.
    - fourfour3 3y ago
      The FPGA is used to implement an approximation of the original hardware’s functionality - not a perfect clone of the original hardware itself, which means they have their own unique bugs and inaccuracies compared to the original designs. I think “emulation” fits as a reasonable description of this, personally - at least as something an average person will understand.

jtvjan 3y ago

They may have read this article written by Near arguing that FPGA-based products are still (hardware-based) emulation: https://archive.is/fWosI https://archive.is/fWosI It's a well-written article, and presents a balanced view. Its stance is against the idea that FPGA-based emulation is always better than CPU-based emulation.

pipes 3y ago
That is a fantastic read. Thanks.
BearOso 3y ago
There's no circuit-level reproduction happening anywhere yet, it's basically emulation with a hardware clock. Analogue and kevtris know that FPGA isn't magic. Rather than contribute to the knowledge pool, like the MiSTer project, they're being bad actors and trying to muddle the situation to make money off of it. Near was trying to clarify the situation, but now we see where good intentions gets you.

armada651 3y ago

The argument being made is that the distinction between an FPGA and CPU is irrelevant to determine whether something is emulation. An emulator accelerated by an FPGA is still an emulator and a CPU simulating a console at the circuit level is no different in accuracy than an FPGA doing the same thing. The main difference is the experience, where the FPGA can offer an experience closer to the original than a CPU running an operating system can, especially for older consoles. Not because of a difference in emulation accuracy, but because the user experience is different.

_factor 3y ago
That’s just building a unit to spec using an fpga instead of a chip fab. If it’s a 1-1 copy, emulation would not appear to be the correct term. If I have a black box chip that takes in 3 bits and spits out 3 based on the input. If I make a bit perfect implement of it, but my chip has additional outputs that correspond to unused input, hence never used. Is it still considered emulation? It differs minimally in a negligible manner.