When mission-critical moments depend on real-time decisions, there’s no room for bottlenecks. Whether you’re processing high-resolution imagery from multi-aperture sensors or running complex AI algorithms on the edge, today’s military systems demand serious parallel processing power. Two top contenders rise to the challenge: Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) and Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). While both are built to handle multiple tasks at once, they go about it in very different ways, each suited to specific workloads and performance priorities.
Not sure which one aligns with your needs? Let’s break down the key differences between these two parallel processing powerhouses — FPGA vs. GPU.
At the core of the FPGA vs. GPU distinction is a fundamental architectural difference — one that directly shapes how each technology handles workloads, adapts to change, and delivers performance.
GPUs are built with a fixed, highly parallel architecture made up of thousands of relatively simple processing cores. These cores are designed to execute the same instruction across large volumes of data in parallel, making GPUs ideal for high-throughput workloads such as:
This architectural model resembles a streamlined assembly line, where a large team of specialized workers each perform the same task on different parts of a job. It’s highly efficient — but also inflexible. Because the structure is set at the time of manufacturing, there’s less opportunity for hardware-level customization.
FPGAs, in contrast, offer a reconfigurable hardware fabric composed of configurable logic blocks (CLBs) and programmable routing. This allows engineers to implement application-specific hardware architectures tailored to precise performance, latency, or power requirements.
Rather than relying on fixed cores, FPGAs provide the raw materials to construct custom circuitry from the ground up—more like a fully equipped workshop than an assembly line. This makes them exceptionally well-suited for applications where flexibility and fine-grained control are critical, like:
While GPUs and FPGAs are both built for parallel processing, the way they achieve it is fundamentally different. Understanding these models of parallelism is key to choosing the right platform for your application’s performance and timing needs.
GPUs are designed to run thousands of lightweight threads in parallel across their many processing cores. This thread-level parallelism is ideal for data-parallel tasks, where the same instruction can be applied independently to large numbers of data elements — such as pixels in an image, values in a matrix, or nodes in a simulation.
The GPU’s strength lies in its ability to manage and schedule vast numbers of threads efficiently, executing identical operations across datasets with minimal overhead. This makes it a natural fit for workloads that scale horizontally and don’t require complex control logic between operations.
FPGAs achieve parallelism through a different model — dataflow and task-level parallelism. Engineers can design custom processing pipelines, where each stage in the pipeline performs a specific function, and data flows continuously through each stage in parallel.
This allows for highly deterministic, low-latency execution, particularly in applications where operations must happen in a specific sequence or where parallel tasks differ in complexity and behavior. Rather than launching thousands of identical threads, the FPGA executes multiple tasks simultaneously across a tailored hardware architecture — delivering both concurrency and control.
Performance isn’t just about raw speed — it’s about how well the architecture fits the task. GPUs and FPGAs take very different approaches here, each with distinct strengths.
When workloads align with their SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) architecture, GPUs can deliver exceptional performance. They’re especially effective for:
However, this high throughput depends on task compatibility. For operations that don’t parallelize cleanly or require more nuanced control logic, GPUs may underperform due to their fixed hardware model.
By enabling engineers to build custom hardware implementations, FPGAs provide precise control over performance characteristics. This results in:
They’re often used in applications like high-frequency trading, network packet processing, and edge computing under tight power constraints. The trade-off? Achieving this level of optimization typically requires specialized hardware design expertise and longer development cycles.
GPUs offer a degree of flexibility through software programmability. Developers can write custom algorithms using high-level languages such as CUDA and OpenCL, enabling a wide range of applications across graphics, AI, and simulation workloads. However, this flexibility is limited to the software layer — the underlying hardware architecture is fixed at the time of manufacture. As a result, while algorithms can evolve, the execution model remains constrained by the hardware’s predefined structure.
FPGAs, by contrast, provide true reconfigurability at the hardware level. Their architecture can be entirely redefined by loading a new configuration, effectively reshaping how the chip operates for a given task. This allows engineers to build and deploy custom hardware accelerators, adapt functionality over time, and optimize systems for unique or evolving requirements. Within the available logic resources, this level of control offers significant versatility — especially in environments where adaptability, precision, or hardware-level innovation is necessary.
The development path for GPUs and FPGAs differs significantly, not only in tools and languages but also in the level of specialized knowledge involved. These differences can have a major impact on how projects are staffed and how long they take to bring to life.
GPUs are typically programmed using higher-level languages and well-supported APIs. This makes them more accessible to software developers and better suited for rapid iteration.
FPGAs require a hardware design mindset, as they’re programmed using Hardware Description Languages (HDLs) like VHDL or Verilog. The development process is more involved — and often slower.
Both GPUs and FPGAs offer impressive parallel processing capabilities — but knowing which to choose depends on your specific performance, flexibility, and development needs.
Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) are ideal for handling massive amounts of data in parallel, especially when high throughput and fast development cycles are key. Choose GPUs when:
Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) offer unmatched customization and efficiency for tasks requiring real-time responsiveness and specialized hardware-level control. Choose FPGAs when:
It’s worth noting that the lines between GPUs and FPGAs are becoming somewhat blurred. We’re seeing hybrid solutions and efforts to make FPGA development more accessible. However, their fundamental architectural differences continue to dictate their strengths and ideal use cases. Many military applications are beginning to use a “triplicate architecture,” a combination of GPU + FPGA + CPU to garner the best features of all types of computing.
Understanding the distinctions between FPGA and GPUs empowers you to choose the right parallel processing powerhouse for your specific application, or a combination of both, unlocking the full potential of high-performance computing.
If you need help finding the right interface or protocol, contact New Wave Design to discuss your requirements.
Contact us today to see how New Wave Design can collaborate with you to achieve your objectives, leveraging our cutting-edge military and aerospace solutions. Experience our dedication to innovation, quality, and unparalleled customer satisfaction firsthand, and together, let’s turn your challenges into triumphs.
"*" indicates required fields
