FPGA for dummies

[Thorham]

But AGA, like ECS Natami and Minimig, come from something other than the original chipset blueprints.

That simply means AGA is a new version of the Amiga chipset.

I just don't see why a new implementation in an ASIC (custom chip, whatever you call it) that somehow differs from the really original thing is different than doing the same in an FPGA.

Wait a minute, are the Amiga custom chips done in ASICs? Aren't ASICs chips that can be programmed once?

But we may never come to agreement on that philosophy.

Indeed. As long as it's clear that it's a philosophy and not necessarily set in stone.

[Thorham]

Let me ask a question.

We are now scanning dies of some 1980 ASICs. From this, we can do polygon extraction - then transistor extraction and then reduce to gates.

This netlist can be synthesised back into an FPGA, or a modern ASIC.
They would be functionally identical.

Is one "emulating" the other?

Not when implemented using an ASIC (billt just explained ASICs quite clearly). In this case you simply get a hardwired copy. If you made a hardwired implementation of just the behavior of a chip, you'd get a replica, not an emulation.

The reason why I keep hammering on the FPGA=emulation thing, is because of the soft side of FPGAs. All sorts of overhead electronics are needed to actually connect the wires together, and these extra components aren't needed to do a hardwired implementation. It seems to be a simple case of interpretation.

An ASIC does not get "programmed". It gets manufactured. And as soon as the last layer of the wafer is manufactured onto it, it gets cut into individual die, put in a package, and that's your final complete chip.

Right, good to have that cleared up, means ASICs can stay out of the whole emulation thing.

[Thorham]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.

What if it's a robotic duck?

Next you'll be arguing about whether computers can ever be classed as intelligent.

Ha ha, I'll bite.

No, they can't. Same goes for the brain, because it's the neural connections that make a brain able to do anything in the first place. No neural connections=no functionality=no intelligence. Applies to computers as well: No software=no functionality.

The question therefore becomes: Can humans write intelligent software?

[Thorham]

These arguments from the "Faithful" about what is "Real" and what is a form of emulation are so ridiculous and narrow minded (and tiring).

Wrong, it's about the principle of what is an emulation and what isn't.

If you want to follow their dogma to the letter then maybe everything that came after the A1000 should be considered emulation?

Of course not, because emulations and partial replicas are two different things.

Why can't the fanatics that try to turn this into a holy religion realize that there is no ONE definition of what a "Real" Amiga is anymore.

The machines you could buy back in the day are the only Amiga computers. What's so fanatical about that?

I have been using the term Amiga inspired a lot lately, because I think that it fits my interests of all things that have their roots in the original Amiga.

That's the whole point behind the real Amiga debate. Some people want Amiga and some people want Amiga inspired.

Step 1: Synapse.
http://www.gizmag.com/researchers-create-artificial-synapse/18482/
http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/brain-chip-1115.html

Step 2: Neuron....

And without step 3 it will all do nothing.

I knew I shouldn't have taken too many steps at once, so I'll break it down:

Is AGA a "proper Amiga" chipset (feel free to define proper so we don't have to go back on that later)?

Perhaps it's a partial replica? Doesn't matter, because it was designed and made by the makers of Amiga.

[Thorham]

Is an FPGA based Cisco router emulation then ? What are they emulating, are you also in the league that says this is emulating a fictional hardware implementation that never will be manufactured ?

You have to look at what the FPGA does here (I didn't ). Is it something that can be ASICed, or is the functionality of the FPGA used in a different way?

[Thorham]

Good. So do you know how much work is required for those steps? The simplification you're implying is that tools do most of the work, whereas the reality is moving from FPGA to ASIC is a labour intensive process that makes use of tools to simplify where possible. There are reasons why ASICs take months to design, even with a working FPGA version in place.

Are you saying you can't implement an FPGA circuit design directly using an ASIC?

[Thorham]

Simulating implies that something about it wouldn't be real

Emulation/simulation doesn't imply that it isn't real, after all, everything that exists is real.

An FPGA-based Amiga is just as real as an original classic Amiga.

Of course, but it's not an Amiga, it's an Amiga replica. Two different things (look at the classic sports car world, the same happens there).

[Thorham]

So if it's real, it is not a simulation.

What I mean is that a simulation is something that's real simply because it exists.

No kidding Sherlock.  So what are you trying to say? That we should resurrect Commodore Inc. along with it's dead executives before we can have classic re-makes? That's absurd.

No, I'm not saying that at all, and yes, that would be absurd.

The only thing that is going to satisfy you and psxphill would be to find a long-lost hidden cache of classic Amigas (or Amiga components) in some forgotten bomb shelter.  News flash, Commodore isn't coming back, nor is the Amiga.

That would be most satisfactory to me, yes. The chance that a large cache of NOS Amigas will be found is of course quites slim, so I'm not counting on it.

Replicas are as good as it will ever get, so get over it.

And that's not good enough for me, only a true hardwired copy would be good enough. I simply see FPGA computers for what they are, FPGA computers, that in and of themselves provide us with a new and interesting alternative computer platform.

More than one FPGA expert in this forum has set you and psxphill straight, but you two insist on spreading dis-information and continue to argue.

I think I have accepted corrections about the technical details, and I have already explained it. The problem was that I was trying to argue a point using technical details thinking it would help. Of course it didn't, and I have already admitted this. How many times must I say that I got that wrong?

My point is about emulation in and of itself and what it can be applied to. For example, can it be applied to software in general? Same question can be asked about FPGAs (and as billt, one of the experts, has said, it's a gray area, and I like to add to that that this makes the question hard to answer).

As for an FPGA computer being an Amiga, it's not, it's an FPGA computer. How difficult is that to see? Then again, people call macs with MorphOS Amigas, hell, people will call peecees with Amiga stickers on them Amigas, while obviously they're not. Why insist on calling something an Amiga while it's not?

[Thorham]

The term emulation started out purely as using hardware, using software was considered simulation (probably because you couldn't achieve real time results with software).

In fact, the words 'to emulate' and 'emulation' have been in use since the 1500s! See these definitions from Merriam-Webster:

Emulate: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulate
Emulation: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emulation

It's precisely this that makes it hard to tell what is and is not an emulation.

[Thorham]

The only emulation being attempted here is to speak techno babble, while lacking any fundamental understanding of the principles or technology being spoken of.

That QUESTION isn't such an attempt, it's a QUESTION. I've actually written that in this thread already. Yes, this thread has caused me to get interested in this kind of thing, and I was wondering how hard/easy switch based logic is to convert to some FPGA format.

:roflmao:  No kidding, that's how much sense he/she was making!

Dude, you're laughing at a BS reply to my question

Yes, I quite agree, after sorting out the fools who like to show off

I guess I do have to say I was wrong again It's NOT about showing off. I was trying to argue a serious point here, which is something that way too many people didn't understand (which is understandable). My mistake was trying to use technical terms to help make my point, and obviously that didn't work.

What I want to know is how many times I still have to say I was wrong?

[Thorham]

The fools who like to show off by making stupid straw man statements in a vain attempt to defend the "emulator in an fpga is not an emulator" stance have managed to make you think that an fpga works differently to how it does.

I sure hope you're not talking about billt, because he's been nothing but patient in explaining the workings of FPGAs.

[Thorham]

Perhaps it's time to restore this thread to it's original purpose.

I'll repeat the question that some people thought was an argument (understandable, seeing how it was worded), and this is about emulation on a normal computer. Whether an FPGA emulates or not isn't relevant here, and I'm not going to argue about that anymore in this thread.

Here goes:

Seeing how I've become interested in FPGA computing, I would like to play with this, and seeing how a switch (emulated relay using bits as signals) emulator on a computer shouldn't be too hard to write, I would like to know how easy or difficult such virtual circuitry would be to translate to actual circuitry that can be implemented using an FPGA (or with wires and transistors, or an ASIC, or...)?

Any pointers are appreciated

[Thorham]

Good answers, guys, great

BTW, a transistor is actually a switch and in CMOS technology you basically have two types: a nMOS one that is open when input is high and a pMOS one that is closed when input is high. It depends on convention if high is representing a 1 or a 0.

Right, I just had a problem with transistors only having three pins, so relays seemed easier to emulate somehow.

Your relay sounds like a passgate.

I just meant normal relays, because they seem easier to use than transistors to me (and it's only about the basic idea of what a normal relay does, the emulator doesn't emulate any electrical charges, too complicated . Also, in my emulator there are only two states: 0 and 1, so that when you add two such signals together directly you basically get the effect of an OR (1+1=1 and not 1+1=2). Would that be a problem to translate?

Also, is there anything wrong with the basic idea of such an emulator?