View Single Post
Old 01 June 2016, 17:50   #290
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,455
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
The only difference with FPGA's (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) processors and ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) processors is that logic gates are volatile and require a load of its gate arrays on power up.
[INDENT]You would still call a ROM a ROM if it was written to a electrically erasable read only memory (EEPROM) or on a one time programmable read only memory (OTPROM) - one is not emulating another. Should I now bring up MASK ROMS?
Back when console games were delivered on ROM cartridge, developers used "ROM emulators" to transfer and test their games on consoles. Using volatile memory.

Originally Posted by Zetr0
FPGA's are not not emulation, they are an implementation they do not have processing overheads associated with the most commonly understood software emulation.
It seems that the word "emulation" has become a red herring in the Amiga world. A lot of us dislike emulators, and those who make FPGA reimplementations want to avoid the ugly connotations of the "E word". But in the end, an emulation is an apparatus that mimics another device. If you implement a well-known graphics chipset in a general-purpose device such as an FPGA, you are emulating it. If you deviate too far from the original (like the Vampire does, but the MiniMig doesn't) you can make a case that you're not emulating. But emulation is just a word, it's not a set of rules that say you must write a 68000 in C.

So, in conclusion, AlexH was using the word correctly when writing this short message, which led to an entire page of debate over the word "emulate":
Originally Posted by alexh View Post
If the FPGA graphics card designers were to emulate the GD5446 register set they wouldn't need to write or include a driver with their hardware.
idrougge is offline  
Page generated in 0.03934 seconds with 10 queries