Why don't computers come with an FPGA on the MB?

You could use it like a reconfigurable peripheral, a co-processor, run old systems in hardware emulation alongside your normal OS, etc.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's too niche for computer companies to justify the added expense. 99.999% of computer users don't even know what an FPGA is. Software emulation is good enough in almost all cases

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I think it's too niche for computer companies to justify the added expense.
      How expensive does it need to be? A couple bucks?

      Intel CPUs were supposed to have an FPGA on board.

      Yeah and they dropped that plan.

      Hardware Definition Languages filter brainlet "programmers".

      Netlists filter HDL script kiddies.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How expensive does it need to be? A couple bucks?
        It's not just a matter of the cost of the chip, obviously. There is a lot of very expensive work that would go into integrating an FPGA with the rest of the system, all for something that almost no one would use.

        >Yeah and they dropped that plan.
        For a reason.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Intel CPUs were supposed to have an FPGA on board.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      is that her actual face? WTF that is a man!!!! Or some kind of troll or golem!!! Im scared

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't know who this was until I started coming here...

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hardware Definition Languages filter brainlet "programmers".

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That’s a man, without a doubt.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Certainly. After all he was posted in an OP image on IQfy,

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are starting to come with dedicated ai hardware whatever the frick that means

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you could park a truck in that broad's gash

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    fpgas are fun when youre young and still figuring out how computers work. eventually you get the hang of it and realize theyre useless for basically everything except weapon systems, telecom autism.
    >fintech
    ime the big boys have already upgraded to custom asics. they use fpgas only for prototyping.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What are the advantages of FPGAs over CPUs and GPUs?
      I come from high energy physics, I remember hearing in lectures that FPGAs are used a lot in the early trigger system at experiments in the LHC. Basically they generate one or two mrgabytes of data (one event) each 25 nanoseconds, so they have to filter out most events very early otherwise impossible to process and store.
      When I asked my professor why FPGAs over CPUs, he said FPGAs run in very precise times while CPU runtime may vary from case to case. Is this true? What other differences are there?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        FPGAs are just reprogrammable binary logic circuits. If you want to do one very specific thing, sometimes they can do it much faster than a CPU and yes with very defined timing constraints while modern CPUs have very unpredictable timings.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you want to play a game, you can load a GPU core into the FPGA. Or a retro PC complete with Sound Blaster, or a full blown modular synthesizer or an MPC emulator. It would be much more powerful than software emulation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i would not use the word "powerful", as it is misleading in this context.

            There is no way to load an RTX4090 into an FPGA, and even if Nvidia made the RTL available, I dont think there exists an FPGA with enough logical elements to host it.

            And even if you could load a reduced-capacity core, it will most likely clock far lower than the ASIC equivalent. the layman would describe this as "lower performance".

            Lastly you can often load CPU cores, or even use embedded hard IP cores if they are available in the FPGA. The softcores will most likely suffer worse performance per watt, lower clock than equivalent, and be more expensive. This is also "lower performance" in laymans terms.

            The retro PC argument is a bit better, but still not very useful because even a layman will wonder "theres no way the retro PC industry is what fuels the FPGA industry". retro PCs just happen to be a good fit for FPGAs because they "fit" into the FPGA, and what easier way to achieve perceptably-identical emulation than by... effectively cloning the hardware digital circuit?

            again I emphasize there is no magic here. If we had 3d printers equivalent for semiconductors, nobody would give a rats arse about FPGAs. Ideally we would do what the commies did and just clone the SB chips by "borrowing" the original masks and respinning them. FPGAs in this regard are the "I dont have a secret service working for me"-poor-mans choice.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            to continue, there are software emulations of vintage hardware that are *also* perceptably-identical to the original hardware. I forward the argument that _this_ is the "more powerful" alternative, because as all software it is very flexible in terms of deployment, in terms of integration with other creature-comforts (recording gameplay footage, streaming, etc.), and is widely available to anyone with a PC.

            In this argument, an FPGA-based emulation system is actually a "cop-out", and objectively less powerful: The emulation developer is essentially making their own life a lot easier by offloading the cost to the user: The user must now obtain specific hardware to run the emulated hardware, and figure out the video recording themselves (via hdmi capture card, or otherwise).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            but having said all that I am still not sure how to best describe to a layman why FPGAs exist, in terms they would understand.

            The best way I can come up with is "an FPGA is the poor mans ASIC".

            now youve outsourced having to explain an FPGA, to having to explain what an ASIC is, which i think would be a lot easier.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no way to load an RTX4090 into an FPGA
            Sure but you don't need that. Switch has good enough graphics for anybody, that's easily doable on an FPGA.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        FPGAs are pretty expensive as far as I know and they'd have very little software support, so there's no need to ship something so pricey on every board. If you have an application for some FPGA it'd probably be better off on an expansion card that you can add only if you need it.

        Think of FPGAs like chips where you can adjust the electronics inside to do whatever you want (within the FPGA's capacity). This means you can basically take these generic components and turn them into purpose-built ICs that can perform very specific tasks but without going through the entire process of actually making a dedicated, built-for-purpose IC which does that job and that job alone. FPGAs can also be changed and adjusted any number of times, so if you need to adjust things later you can still do that.

        CPUs are basically fixed-function devices, you cannot adjust the internal parts of the CPU. A CPU's purpose is to execute instructions, but they're incredibly complex devices and how fast an instruction sequence will execute often depends on complex internal state of the CPU. Moreover, at least in modern terms most or all CPUs you've used probably run an operating system, which in and of itself is an incredibly complex piece of software which runs many different tasks at the same time and switches between them. This means that if you want to do something with extremely precise and tight timing you're better off using a dedicated IC or an FPGA to do it reliably 100% of the time, rather than using a CPU with some complex OS on top that may be busy doing something else at the very moment you need it or that may execute an instruction sequence due to frick knows what internal state.

        Also when you don't need the flexibility of software execution, you may get away with a simpler and smaller device which just performs a fixed function in hardware.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, FPGAs are cool but high speed ADCs are cooler.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >high speed ADCs
        zero purposes

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          probably mostly used by avionics (mil & civil) for their fly-by-wire systems. perhaps radar also.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    surely an add in card would make more sense?
    most motherboards have a spare PCIE slot with plenty of bandwidth and power

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're posting the wrong tall blonde female, baka!

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    fpgas are useless as a co-processor and emulation of old systems. the only real uses cases are where extremely accurate timing (in the nanosecond range) is required, or when a massive amount of I/O pins is required. fpgas for these purposes are not cheap, and useless for normies.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They exist, you can buy them. SQRL Acorn for instance fits in an nvme slot.
    You'll be hard pressed to find literally any binaries, software, or support for it outside of very old mining shit though.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *