Arguing that a z80 implemented on an FPGA is an "emulated" z80 is as nonsensical as arguing that the Agon's new ez80 running in compatibility mode is an "emulated" z80.
> a cpu implemented on an fpga is somehow not real, It's more real than pure software, but it's still essentially pointless in most cases, because it serves neither the "I just want the experience" as efficiently as pure software, nor the "I want to run the original hardware" at all
The ez80 included with the Agon light was introduced to the market during the George W Bush presidency. That board is all surface-mount electronics with nothing upgradeable or easily repairable on it. It is cool and fun but it's not "the experience" or "the original hardware." (it is its own thing, and that's cool)
> not merely less efficiently
I'm not an EE but it seems to me the "efficiency" you're talking about here does not involve dollar cost, parts count, or electrical current, so that's interesting.
If you implement all the same logic, then it's all the same logic, and by your own logic, the implementation medium doesn't matter.
Performance may differ but that's a seperate facet from "real" if you are going to allow hardware emulation to count as "real".
Even though a gate provided by an fpga is hardware, it's totally different hardware from that same gate in a native ic. You just get a very similar outward effect, IE, a very good emulation.
This conversation is stupid.
And the ez80 is totally different hardware than a classic z80. It seems like a religious argument that a z80 core implemented on an FPGA, offering exactly the same registers and features as a classic z80, is somehow less "real" than the ez80 (which doesn't offer the exact same features as a z80) simply because the FPGA might (or might not) be reprogrammable to a different set of gates.
> You just get a very similar outward effect, IE, a very good emulation.
An emulator is a thing that exists in the world, and this is not it. Someone in another thread mentioned implementing a z80 on an ESP32. That is an emulator.
> This conversation is stupid.
Insofar as it's about terminology... yeah, okay, your word.
If all you want is the functionality, and don't care how it works, then why in the world even bother emulating, or implimenting, a z80 with an fpga?
Either use emulation software if you just want the experience, or just use normal contemporary hardware and software with no vintage aspect.
Are you actually running a z80 to run a spreadsheet for actual productivity? Of course not. So you must be using a z80 for some other reason than it's actual functionality. So, the works matter after all.
Pointful uses of an fpga wrt to vintage stuff is replicating parts that can't be purchased any more, or as a rapid development environment, emulating a system so you can develop some other hardware or software for that system etc. Emulating a cpu or a system which still exists, just to use it? Pointless. Any justification mentioning availability, size, cost, reliability, convenience etc, are even 10 or 100x better served by pure software. The amount of cases where the ultra cycle accuracy matters these days is actually quite small as both the emulator software and the contemporary cpus have gotten better while the target has not gotten any harder.
Yes, a cpu implemented on an fpga is somehow not real, It's more real than pure software, but it's still essentially pointless in most cases, because it serves neither the "I just want the experience" as efficiently as pure software, nor the "I want to run the original hardware" at all, not merely less efficiently.