While I understand what simulation and emulation mean in general, I almost always get confused about them. Assume that I create a piece of software that mimics existing hardware/software, what should I call it? A simulator or an emulator?
Could anyone explain the difference in terms of programming?
Bonus: What is the difference in English between these two terms? (Sorry, I am not a native speaker :))
Emulation is the process of mimicking the outwardly observable behavior to match an existing target. The internal state of the emulation mechanism does not have to accurately reflect the internal state of the target which it is emulating.
Simulation, on the other hand, involves modeling the underlying state of the target. The end result of a good simulation is that the simulation model will emulate the target which it is simulating.
Ideally, you should be able to look into the simulation and observe properties that you would also see if you looked into the original target. In practice, there may some shortcuts to the simulation for performance reasons -- that is, some internal aspects of the simulation may actually be an emulation.
MAME is an arcade game emulator; Hyperterm is a (not very good) terminal emulator. There's no need to model the arcade machine or a terminal in detail to get the desired emulated behavior.
Flight Simulator is a simulator; SPICE is an electronics simulator. They model as much as possible every detail of the target to represent what the target does in reality.
EDIT: Other responses have pointed out that the goal of an emulation is to able to substitute for the object it is emulating. That's an important point. A simulation's focus is more on the modeling of the internal state of the target -- and the simulation does not necessarily lead to emulation. In particular, a simulation may run far slower than real-time. SPICE, for example, cannot substitute for an actual electronics circuit (even if assuming there was some kind of magical device that perfectly interfaces electrical circuits to a SPICE simulation.) A simulation does not always lead to emulation --
If a flight-simulator could transport you from A to B then it would be a flight-emulator.
An emulator can replace the original for real use.
A Virtual PC emulates a PC.
A simulator is a model for study and analysis.
An emulator will always have to operate close to real-time. For a simulator that is not always the case. A geological simulation could do 1000 years/second or more.
Simulation = For analysis and study
Emulation = For usage as a substitute
A simulator is an environment which models but an emulator is one that replicates the usage as on the original device or system.
Simulator mimics the activity of something that it is simulating. It "appears"(a lot can go with this "appears", depending on the context) to be the same as the thing being simulated. For example the flight simulator "appears" to be a real flight to the user, although it does not transport you from one place to another.
Emulator, on the other hand, actually "does" what the thing being emulated does, and in doing so it too "appears to be doing the same thing". An emulator may use different set of protocols for mimicking the thing being emulated, but the result/outcome is always the same as the original object. For example, EMU8086 emulates the 8086 microprocessor on your computer, which obviously is not running on 8086 (= different protocols), but the output it gives is what a real 8086 would give.
It's a difference in focus. Emulators1 focus on recreating the behavior of a system, with no regard for how the system functions internally. Simulators2 focus on modeling the components of a system. You use an emulator when you care mostly about what a system does, and a simulator when you care about how it does it.
As for their general English meanings, emulation is "the endeavor to equal or to excel another in qualities or actions", while simulation is "to model, replicate, duplicate the behavior, appearance or properties of". Not much difference. Emulation comes from æmulus, "striving, rivaling," and is related to "imitate" and "image," which suggests a surface-lever resemblance. "Simulation" comes from similis "like", as does the word "similar," which perhaps suggests a deeper congruence.
References:
I don't think emulator and simulator can be compared. Both mimic something, but are not part of the same scope of reasonning, they are not used in the same context.
In short: an emulator is designed to copy some features of the orginial and can even replace it in the real environment. A simulator is not desgined to copy the features of the original, but only to appear similar to the original to human beings. Without the features of the orginal, the simulator cannot replace it in the real environment.
An emulator is a device that mimics something close enough so that it can be substituted to the real thing. E.g you want a circuit to work like a ROM (read only memory) circuit, but also wants to adjust the content until it is what you want. You'll use a ROM emulator, a black box (likely to be CPU-based) with a physical and electrical interfaces compatible with the ROM you want to emulate. The emulator will be plugged into the device in place of the real ROM. The motherboard will not see any difference when working, but you will be able to change the emulated-ROM content easily. Said otherwise the emulator will act exactly as the actual thing in its motherboard context (maybe a little bit slower due to actual internal model) but there will be additional functions (like re-writing) visible only to the designer, out of the motherboard context. So emulator definition would be: something that mimic the original, has all of its functional features, can actually replace it to some extend in the real world, and may have additional features not visible in the normal context.
A simulator is used in another thinking context, e.g a plane simulator, a car simulator, etc. The simulation will take care only of some aspect of the actual thing, usually those related to how a human being will perceive and control it. The simulator will not perform the functions of the real stuff, and cannot be sustituted to it. The plane simulator will not fly or carry someone, it's not its purpose at all. The simulator is not intended to work, but to appear to the pilot somehow like the actual thing for purposes other than its normal ones, e.g. to allow ground training (including in unusual situations like all-engine failure). So simulator definition would be: something that can appear to human, to some extend, like the original, but cannot replace it for actual use. In addition the pilot will know that the simulator is a simulator.
I don't think we'll see any ROM simulator, because ROM are not interacting with human beings, nor we'll see any plane emulator, because planes cannot have a replacement performing the same functions in the real world.
In my view the model inside an emulator or a simulator can be anything, and has not to be similar to the model of the original. A ROM emulator model will likely be software instead of hardware, MS Flight Simulator cannot be more software than it is.
This comparison of both terms will contradict the currently selected answer (from Toybuilder) which puts the difference on the internal model, while my suggestion is that the difference is whether the fake can or cannot be used to perform the actual function in the actual world (to some accepted extend, indeed).
Note that the plane simulator will have also to simulate the earth, the sun, the wind, etc, which are not part of the plane, so a plane simulator will have to mimic some aspects of the plane, as well as the environment of the plane because it is not used in this actual environment, but in a training room.
This is a big difference with the emulator which emulates only the orginal, and its purpose is to be used in the environment of the original with no need to emulate it. Back to the plane context... what could be a plane emulator? Maybe a train that will connect two airports -- actually two plane steps -- carrying passengers, with stewardesses onboard, with car interior looking like an actual plane cabin, and with captain saying "ladies and gentlemen our altitude is currenlty 10 kms and the temperature at our destination is 24°C". Its benefit is difficult to see, hum...
As a conclusion, the emulator is a real thing intended to work, the simulator is a fake intended to trick the user.
To understand the difference between a simulator and an emulator, keep in mind that a simulator tries to mimic the behavior of a real device. For example, in the case of the iOS Simulator, it simulates the real behavior of an actual iPhone/iPad device. However, the Simulator itself uses the various libraries installed on the Mac (such as QuickTime) to perform its rendering so that the effect looks the same as an actual iPhone. In addition, applications tested on the Simulator are compiled into x86 code, which is the byte-code understood by the Simulator. A real iPhone device, conversely, uses ARM-based code.
In contrast, an emulator emulates the working of a real device. Applications tested on an emulator are compiled into the actual byte-code used by the real device. The emulator executes the application by translating the byte-code into a form that can be executed by the host computer running the emulator.
To understand the subtle difference between simulation and emulation, imagine you are trying to convince a child that playing with knives is dangerous. To simulate this, you pretend to cut yourself with a knife and groan in pain. To emulate this, you actually cut yourself.
Some years ago I came up with a very short adage that, I believe, captures the essence of the difference quite nicely:
A simulator is an emulator on a mission.
By that I mean that you use an emulator when you can't use the real thing, and you use a simulator when you can't use the real thing and you want to find something out about it.
Simple Explanation.
If you want to convert your PC (running Windows) into Mac, you can do either of these:
(1) You can simply install a Mac theme on your Windows. So, your PC feels more like Mac, but you can't actually run any Mac programs.
(SIMULATION)
(or)
(2) You can program your PC to run like Mac (I'm not sure if this is possible :P ). Now you can even run Mac programs successfully and expect the same output as on Mac.
(EMULATION)
In the first case, you can experience Mac, but you can't expect the same output as on Mac.
In the second case, you can expect the same output as on Mac, but still the fact remains that it is only a PC.
The distintion between the two terms is a bit fuzzy. Coming from a world where "Emulators" are pieces of hardware that allow you debug embedded systems. And remember products that allowed you to have ICE (In Circuit Emulation) capabilities to debug a PC platform, I find the use of the term "Emulation" to be a somewhat of a misnomer for software that SIMULATES the behaviour of a piece of hardware.
My justification for the current use of the term is Emulation is that it may "augment" the functionality, and only is concerned with a "reasonable" approximation of the behaviour of the system.
ICE: (In Circuit Emulation) A piece of hardware that is plugged into a board in place of the actual processor. It allows you to run the system as if the actual processor was present. Typically these have a variant of the processor on them to actually execute the software with glue logic to allow the user to break executation and single step under hardware control. Some would also provide logging capability. Most modern processors development systems have replace ICE type emulation with JTAG Emulation, where the JTAG just talks to the processor via a special purpose serial link and all execution is perform by the processor mounted on the board.
Software EMULATOR: An 0x86 emulator is only concerned with being able to execute 0x86 assembly language, not providing accurate cycle per cycle behaviourial model of a SPECIFIC 0x86 processor. Bochs is an example of this. QEMU does this, but also allows "virtualization" using special kernel modules.
SIMULATOR: Texas Instruments provides a CYCLE ACCURATE behaviourial model of there processors for software development that is intended to be a accurate SIMULATION of SPECIFIC processor cores behavior for the developers to use prior to having working hardware.
Software EMULATOR augmenting functionality: BLEEM not only allowed you to run Playstation Software, but also allowed the display to be output with higher resolution than the Playstation was able to provide, and also took advantage of more advanced capabilities of GPUs that were avaliable. (i.e. Better blending and smoothing of textures.)
Both are models of an object that you have some means of controlling inputs to and observing outputs from.
The key difference is that:
Let me give an example -- suppose you want to do some system testing to see how adding a new sensor (like a thermometer) to a system would affect the system. You know that the thermometer sends a message 8 time a second containing its measurement.
Simulation -- if you do not have the thermometer yet, but you want to test that this message rate will not overload you system, you can simulate the sensor by attaching a unit that sends a random number 8 times a second. You can run any test that does not rely on the actual value the sensor sends.
Emulation -- suppose you have a very expensive thermometer that measures to 0.001 C, and you want to see if you can get by with a cheaper thermometer that only measures to the nearest 0.5 C. You can emulate the cheaper thermometer using an expensive thermometer and then rounding the reading to the nearest 0.5 C and running tests that rely on the temperature values.
Note that simulations can also be used for forecasting or predicting behavior. Finite element analysis simulations are used in many applications, including weather prediction and virtual wind tunnels.
The definitions of the terms:
This question is probably best answered by taking a look at historical practice.
In the past, I've seen gaming console emulators on PC for the PlayStation & SEGA.
Simulators are commonplace when referring to software that tries to mimic real life actions, such as driving or flying. Gran Turismo and Microsoft Flight Simulator spring to mind as classic examples of simulators.
As for the linguistic difference, emulation usually refers to the action of copying someone's (or something's) praiseworthy characteristics or behaviors. Emulation is distinct from imitation, in which a person is copied for the purpose of mockery.
The linguistic meaning of the verb 'simulation' is essentially to pretend or mimic someone or something.
In computer science both a simulation and emulation produce the same outputs, from the same inputs, that the original system does; However, an emulation also uses the same processes to achieve it and is made out of the same materials. A simulation uses different processes from the original system. Also worth noting is the term replication, which is the intermediate of the two - using the same processes but being made out of a different material.
So if I want to run my old Super Mario Bros game on my PC I use an SNES emulator, because it is using the same or similar computer code (processes) to run the game, and uses the same or similar materials (silicon chip). However, if I want to fly a Boeing 747 jet on my PC I use a flight simulator because it uses completely different processes from the original (there are no actual wings, lift or aerodynamics involved!).
Here are the exact definitions taken from a computer science glossary:
A simulation is a model of a system that captures the functional connections between inputs and outputs of the system, but without necessarily being based on processes that are the same as, or similar to, those of the system itself.
A replication is a model of a system that captures the functional connections between inputs and outputs of the system and is based on processes that are the same as, or similar to, those of the system itself.
An emulation is a model of some system that captures the functional connections between inputs and outputs of the system, based on processes that are the same as, or similar to, those of that system, and that is built of the same materials as that system.
Reference: The Open University, M366 Glossary 1.1, 2007
A simulation is a system that behaves similar to something else, but is implemented in an entirely different way. It provides the basic behavior of a system but may not necessarily abide by all of the rules of the system being simulated. It is there to give you an idea about how something works.
An emulation is a system that behaves exactly like something else, and abides by all of the rules of the system being emulated. It is effectively a complete replication of another system, right down to being binary compatible with the emulated system's inputs and outputs, but operating in a different environment to the environment of the original emulated system. The rules are fixed, and cannot be changed or the system fails.
The definitions of the words describe the difference the best. A google search gives the following definitions of simulate and emulate:
simulate imitate the appearance or character of.
emulate match or surpass (a person or achievement), typically by imitation.
A simulation imitates a system. An emulation simulates a system so well that it could replace it or may even surpass it.
In computing, an emulation would be a drop in replacement for the system it is emulating. Often times it will even outperform the system it is imitating. For example, game console emulators usually make improvements such as greater hardware compatibility, better performance, and improved audio/video quality.
Simulations, on the other hand, are limited by them being models. They are a best attempt to mimic a system, but not replacements for it. There are hardware emulators because hardware can be imitated and it would be hard to tell the difference. There is no Farming Emulator because there is no emulation that could replace actual farming. We can only simulate a model of farming to gain insight on how to farm better.
Both terms are something completely different and only intersect very little. To find the right term is actually very easy, just think about following:
A simulation does not do anything for real. You can study it, for example how computer work, but it usually has no outcome other than that. A plane crash in a Flight Simulator causes no real harm. A weather forecast simulation itself does not change the weather.
An emulation does something for real. You can work with an emulated computer like with a physical one and create documents with it. And a plane crash in a Flight Emulator would have an outcome, like people experiencing the real impact including possible physical harm.
Your confusion probably stems from the fact, that "studying the simulation" and "accessing the emulation" often is quite the same thing.
You are not alone with your confusion. The Film "Matrix" speaks of a simulation. However The Matrix is running an emulation, as it has real impact on all members of The Matrix. In contrast the training room has no real impact, so this is a simulation (of The Matrix).
Let's see some examples.
Take a water hose in the garden and let it rain. What's the difference between simulation and emulation here?
When you are simulating rain, people still will blame you for getting wet. Your rain has some real impact on the world, but your simulation hasn't, as the simulation does not fool anybody in that it is real rain.
In contrast, when you are emulating rain, people would blame the weather. This is, your emulated rain really behaves like rain in reality. This rain emulation hence distorts reality, in making people belie in the wrong culprit.
It took me quite some time to understand that. Hence it isn't easy nor obvious which explains all the confusion.
Keep in mind that a simulation can have sideeffects, like the weather forecast is based on simulations, which takes quite some computing power and thus electrical energy, which has an environmental impact.
Hence in the example of "simulated rain", people getting wet just is a sideffect and not part of the simulation. Same is true if you simulate a rainbow with this simulated rain. While the property of "how rainbows work" is part of this simulation, the simulation itself is not providing the rainbow, this just happens due to refraction of the sun on the sideffect of the waterdrops.
While you might think "a simulated computer can have an outcome" this is practically wrong reasoning. If you save files onto a simulated harddrive, these files cannot leave the simulated drive outside of the simulation. You can obtain the files by studying the simulated drive, but this is not part of the simulation itself.
In case the harddrive saves the data such, that the data is actually usable outside of the simulation, you have an emulated harddrive within the simulation to do so.
So an emulation can be part of a simulation and vice versa.
If you simulate a filesystem, you probably, for practicability, will choose to save the files onto your real filesystem as-is (perhaps with some additional meta-information). In that case the simulation seems to create real "value" outside of the simulation: Usable files!
But this is just by coincidence, because your simulated filesystem actually emulates a filesystem as well. You actually emulated the outside filesystem inside your simulation!
A good example of the difference is, when you think of security. A TPM is a specific device to keep it's own keys secure (source of identity) while an HSM is a general device to secure foreign keys (verify identity).
Fun Fact: My fingers constantly type TMP instead of TPM.
If you simulate a TPM this has a huge effect on security, because then you can observe the internal states of the TPM. Which renders all the security void. Even that such a simulation can give you valuable hints of improving the design of a TPM itself, you won't want to expose precious data to the simulated TPM for real.
However if you emulate a TPM you will try to hide these internal states to the outside as good as you can. Such an emulated TPM then can be possibly used to really secure something else better than without it.
With a real TPM you cannot emulate the properties of a real HSM. All you can archive is to simulate an HSM, but this will not have the security properties of a real HSM, so all data which is stored in this simulated HSM will not be protected (they will only be protected within the simulation itself).
In contrast, with a real HSM you can emulate a TPM with all properties of a real TPM. For this the HSM needs to be constructed such, that no information needs to leave the HSM which does not leave a TPM as well.
(Please note that I do not know anything about HSMs or TPMs in particular, so it might be that there are no HSMs out there which are able to provide emulated TPMs.)
If our world is simulated, we are simulations, too. Hence some spectator (let's call her God) can look at us and change the simulation any time. Also we cannot find out if we are simulated or not. As I am pretty sure that I know that I am, I do not think I am simulated, because self-awareness looks like an effect with a real component to me, which contradicts simulation. This also means, our world cannot be a simulation, too, as a simulation can only affect me like the world does, if I am part of the simulation.
But our world still can be emulated (like in the Film "Matrix"), as all I have to "prove the world" is my state of mind and sensory input, which I cannot verify, as I cannot leave myself. If I am not part of the emulation, then there should be a chance to observe discontinuity (like in the film "Matrix"), in case the emulation does not work flawlessly.
This changes when I emulated, too, like running an OS in an emulator. Then I cannot observe such errors, as my state can be reset from within the emulation (call it: Sleep) without observable discontinuation.
However I rather think that the world is a holographic hallucination than something like an emulation. Because if it is emulated, then I am pwned by somebody (call him Rick) who is running the emulation for some purpose, while a hallucination is purely my own thing.
I stop here, because hallucinations lead us to something completely different.
Emulator:
Consider a situation that you know only English and you are in China. In order to interact with a Chinese person you need a translator. Now, role of translator is that it will seek input from you in English and convert to Chinese and and give that input to the Chinese person and gets response from the Chinese person and convert to English and give the output to you in English. Now that translator and Chinese person is the emulator. Both combine will provide similar functionality as if you were communicating with the English person. So hardware may be different but functionality will be same.
Simulator:
I can't give better example than SPICE or flight simulator. Both will replace hardware component behavior with the software or mathematical model which will behave similar to the hardware.
In the end it depends on the context that which solution better suits project needs.
Simulator is something more broader than Emulator and it seems like the duality of this terms is overthought in the posts above.
Emulator
People decided to use a new word emulation in the "computer world" when they started replacing some hardware parts of the existing system in straightforward manner - imitating their behaviour and relying on the computational nature to be sure to not break something and leave everything in the equivalent state. So we have emulated the piece of this! (and the whole still works as before)
Emulator usually used in narrow sense in digital area as replacement and virtualization - presenting in digital form as a piece of software - of something known and existed before (virtual chips, circuit boards, electronic devices). So when the world became more digital and brought the emulator word to the masses, the masses added uncertainty to it (or additional reasons).
Simulator
First of all, I saw many comments about emulators do or replace something real but simulators not.
BUT flight simulator is used for a real thing - it trains pilots, gives them skill up and knowledge and it replaces expensive real planes and saves much of money. And we cannot just say a plane-emulator because we have inner feeling that this is much more than that, so we call it simulator :) Plane simulator could contain emulated radar or transponder that is true.
Contra-statements that simulators are used for analysis and study (and emulators for something real), but that analysis and study not less a real thing than emulated GSM boards (even more in the informational age we live in). Analysis adds a value to the business, cuts costs or points out to profits not less than the replaced (emulated) hardware.
Simulator is similar to modelling of something that we can't obtain for some reason (cost, technology, physical impossibility). It is usually simulated for something new or intangible or complex or not properly known to us like market, weather, combustion, user. So here comes the flight, black hole, stock exchange, simulations.
So finally:
As for words origin
All came from Latin and mean:
