Top
Best
New

Posted by thawawaycold 3 days ago

FPGAs Need a New Future(www.allaboutcircuits.com)
137 points | 87 commentspage 2
rcxdude 8 hours ago|
FPGA toolchains certainly could do with being pulled out of the gutter but I don't think that alone will lead to much of a renaissance for them. Almost definitionally they're for niches: applications which need something weird in hardware but aren't big enough to demand dedicated silicon, because the flexibility of FPGAs comes at a big cost in die area (read:price), power, and speed.
phendrenad2 6 hours ago||
It seems to me that there are exactly 3 buyers for FPGAs: Government contractors (who spend millions all at once), retro gamers (small market), and electronics hobbyists (another small market). It's no wonder every company has orientated itself towards the first one. I look to China to accidentally make chips that are an order of magnitude better "just because they can".
jauntywundrkind 9 hours ago||
Making FPGA's actually available (without encumbering stacks) would be so great. Companies IMO do better when they stop operating from within their moat & this would be such the amazing use case to lend support for that hypothesis.

Gowin and Efinix, like Lattice, have some very interesting new FPGAs, that they've innovated hard on, but which still are only so-so available.

Particularly with AI about, having open source stacks really should be a major door opening function. There could be such an OpenROAD type moment for FPGAs!

anondawg55 8 hours ago||
No. FPGAs already have a future. You just don't know about it yet.
octoberfranklin 7 hours ago||
The problem is that FPGA companies don't see themselves as chip companies.

They see themselves as CAD software companies. The chip is just a copy-protection dongle.

CamperBob2 5 hours ago||
Here’s the first big misconception: HDL is hardware. It isn’t. HDL is software and should be managed like software.

Yes, that's certainly a big misconception. Maybe not the one the author meant to call out, but... yes, a big misconception indeed.

oscillonoscope 3 hours ago|
Its both depending on context. If HDL becomes custom silicon then it needs to be treated like hardware. If you can easily deploy field updates to your device then it's no different than any other firmware
checker659 3 days ago||
Cost is also such a big issue.
fleventynine 8 hours ago|
There are some reasonably affordable models like https://www.lcsc.com/product-detail/C5272996.html that are powerful enough for many tasks.
nospice 7 hours ago||
To folks who wax lyrical about FPGAs: why do they need a future?

I agree with another commenter: I think there are parallels to "the bitter lesson" here. There's little reason for specialized solutions when increasingly capable general-purpose platforms are getting faster, cheaper, and more energy efficient with every passing month. Another software engineering analogy is that you almost never need to write in assembly because higher-level languages are pretty amazing. Don't get me wrong, when you need assembly, you need assembly. But I'm not wishing for an assembly programming renaissance, because what would be the point of that?

FPGAs were a niche solution when they first came out, and they're arguably even more niche now. Most people don't need to learn about them and we don't need to make them ubiquitous and cheap.

tyami94 7 hours ago|
I can't say I agree with you here, if anything FPGAs and general purpose microprocessors go hand in hand. It would be an absolute game changer to be able to literally download hardware acceleration for a new video codec or encryption algorithm. Currently this is all handled by fixed function silicon which rapidly becomes obsolete. AV1 support is only just now appearing in mainstream chips after almost 8 years, and soon AV2 will be out and the cycle will repeat.

This is such a severe problem that even now, (20+ year old) H.264 is the only codec that you can safely assume every end-user will be able to play, and H.264 consumes 2x (if not more) bandwidth compared to modern codecs at the same perceived image quality. There are still large subsets of users that cannot play any codecs newer than this without falling back to (heavy and power intensive) software decoding. Being able to simply load a new video codec into hardware would be revolutionary, and that's only one possible use case.

nospice 5 hours ago||||
But why would it be amazing? The alternative right now is that you do it in software and just dedicate a couple of cores to the task (or even just put in a separate $2 chip to run the decoder).

Like, I get the aesthetic appeal, and I accept that there is a small subset of uses where an FPGA really makes a difference. But in the general case, it's a bit like getting upset at people for using an MCU when a 555 timer would do. Sure, except doing it the "right" way is actually slower, more expensive, and less flexible, so why bother?

fennecbutt 5 hours ago||
Battery powered or thermally constrained devices.
nospice 5 hours ago|||
...which are playing back video, so they're likely blowing most of their power budget on the display and on radio. I guess my threshold of "amazing" is different. Again, I'm not denying some incremental utility in specialized uses, but most of the time, it just doesn't seem to be worth the pain - especially since nothing about the implementation will be portable or maintainable in the long haul.

In the same vein, no one is writing a smartwatch software stack in 100% bare-metal assembly, although in the hands of a capable developer, I'm sure it could prolong battery life.

ThrowawayR2 7 hours ago|||
And you think that a downloaded codec on an FPGA would perform anywhere close to custom silicon? Because it won't; configurability comes at a steep cost.
checker659 2 hours ago||
FPGAs are more like CGRAs these days. With the right DSP units, it could absolutely be competitive with custom silicon.
ursAxZA 7 hours ago|
If Jim Keller says it, I’ll believe it.

My Ryzen agrees — the fans just spun up like it’s hitting 10,000 rpm.