The processor architecture used in a computing device plays a crucial role in how that device performs. For years we have seen two key players dominate in this area: Intel and ARM. Recently however, ARM processors have expanded beyond their mobile roots, bringing new choice and competition to the laptop and even desktop space.
So when considering your next device purchase, should you opt for ARM or Intel? This guide will dive into their differences to help you decide.
Core Architectural Differences
ARM and Intel processors have distinct underlying architectures that influence everything from performance to compatibility.
Basic Design
-
Intel processors use CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing), which incorporates the instructions to manage chip functions directly onto the main processor. This allows faster inter-chip communication but means Intel CPUs tend to be more complex.
-
ARM processors utilize RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing), keeping the processor itself simple by handling management instructions via separate chips. This modular approach facilitates customization for specific tasks.
-
Intel uses a multiple component construction, while ARM employs a monolithic unified structure combining elements like the graphics processor onto a single chip.
Instruction Sets
-
CISC provides rich, versatile instruction sets but also results in greater complexity.
-
RISC opts for simplified instruction sets, increased efficiency and flexibility for embedded computing roles.
So in summary, Intel prioritizes faster processing while ARM focuses on efficiency and targeted use case optimization.
Typical Use Cases
Historically ARM and Intel chips have occupied quite distinct spheres:
-
Intel dominates in desktops, laptops, servers and other compute-intensive environments where peak performance trumps power draw. Intel powers most Windows and Linux machines.
-
ARM processors primarily feature in mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, where low power consumption for battery longevity is key. iOS and Android devices overwhelmingly feature ARM-based chips from companies like Qualcomm, Samsung and Apple.
However, the lines are blurring. Apple is transitioning even its laptop and desktop range to its proprietary ARM-based Apple Silicon, with the M1 and M2 chips delivering new levels of efficiency without compromising too heavily on speed. Microsoft also supports ARM processors via Windows on Snapdragon initiatives.
So ARM is entering spaces previously reserved for Intel. This intensifies the rivalry between x86 and ARM.
Performance Comparison
Benchmarks suggest that when optimally utilized, Apple‘s M1 and M2 can match and occasionally outpace Intel‘s laptop chips on both single and multi-core performance. However Intel still dominates in terms of peak computing power and runs cooler at higher loads. Some key metrics:
General Compute Speed
- For day-to-day productivity, ARM and Intel mobile chips are comparable. At its limits though, Intel extends further.
- In multi-core scenarios, ARM chips can compete strongly, thanks to additional low-power cores.
According to PassMark tests, leading Intel laptop processors score around 15,000 for multi-core performance. Apple‘s M2 scores 18,707 while the Intel Core i7-1280P achieves 21,308, with both delivering excellent speeds.
Workloads and Efficiency
- Intel processors enable stronger sustained workloads before performance dips due to thermals.
- ARM systems prove more efficient for light mobile workflows.
- For intensive creative tasks, Intel laptops currently have the edge over Apple Silicon.
- In server environments Intel continues to dominate, though ARM is creeping into roles like load balancing where efficiency trumps raw compute.
So while the ARM architecture brings huge power efficiency benefits, Intel still leads outright performance at the top end.
Energy Usage and Thermals
ARM‘s energy efficiency lead manifests clearly when examining power draw and heat dissipation.
- ARM SoCs generate minimal heat relative to desktop/laptop-focused Intel chips.
- Idle power draw is also far lower. ARM processors routinely sip just a few watts vs up to 15W for an Intel laptop CPU.
- This translates into superior battery life spans on ARM devices. Apple‘s latest Silicon MacBooks last over 18 hours browsing vs around 10-11 hours for leading Intel counterparts.
So if you seek all-day battery endurance from something ultrathin like a MacBook Air, ARM has the upper hand. For desktops or gaming laptops where power draw matters less, Intel remains firmly in the driving seat when ultimate performance ranks highest.
Software and Operating System Compatibility
Due to their respective origins powering distinct hardware, Intel and ARM CPUs have faced different software compatibility challenges.
- Android and iOS apps run natively on ARM.
- Windows and macOS have traditionally targeted Intel chips.
However, using emulation and translation tools like Apple‘s Rosetta 2, Intel-based macOS and Windows applications can now run smoothly on ARM-based Apple Silicon Macs. There remain some exceptions like certain plugins, but compatibility is strong.
Adapting Windows for ARM continues, but challenges around translating existing software remain. Apple‘s vertical integration likely gives it an advantage in cultivating an ARM-based ecosystem.
For now at least, software support broadly favors Intel, but the gap is shrinking as tools like Rosetta mature.
Programming Complexity Considerations
For developers and coders, creating software for each architecture brings differing levels and types of complexity.
-
Intel‘s CISC design places fewer constraints on instruction types, allowing relatively high-level languages like C++ close hardware access. This means coding can be simpler and quicker, though less hardware optimized.
-
ARM‘s RISC approach requires greater precision given its reliance on register access. Languages like Assembly allow direct hardware control for maximum speed, but bring a far steeper learning curve.
So ARM rewards coding skill and hardware mastery with faster processes, while Intel favors software ease-of-use and broad compatibility.
For most everyday users this means little. But for developers, architects and advanced creators, the programming trade-offs merit consideration.
Which Processor Should You Choose?
With ARM rapidly improving while retaining efficiency advantages, the choice between Intel and ARM grows tougher for average users seeking a capable laptop or desktop. Some guidelines:
Seek Outright Performance? Pick Intel
For demanding applications like CAD, data science or hardcore gaming, Intel‘s range-topping H-Series mobile processors currently provide the best experience, even if requiring beefier cooling.
If building a gaming PC, Intel plus a high-end graphics card remains tough to beat for sheer speed. For 2021/2022 at least, pick Intel for peak performance.
Need Impressive Battery Life? Go ARM
If you desire extreme portable endurance for web browsing, document editing and messaging, Apple Silicon MacBooks are hard to beat, lasting hours longer than competitors while offering brisk speeds.
For road warriors who spend more time on video calls than intensive workloads, ARM‘s efficiency makes perfect sense, future-proofed for full-day use.
On a Budget? Intel Still Brings Choice
While Apple Silicon Macs impress, Intel machines span a wider range, including budget options providing decent performance without breaking the bank. ARM alternatives remain relatively limited for now.
Seek Flexibility? Intel Offers Established Ecosystem
If you anticipate needing niche software or plug-ins that may lack ARM compatibility, Intel provides peace of mind. As the mature incumbent, its ecosystem offers greater choice and support, though ARM is catching up fast.
The Outlook for ARM vs Intel
While Intel continues advancing x86 performance, ARM‘s ascendance brings genuine choice to markets Intel has dominated. With Apple pushing ARM into creative pro PCs, Microsoft eyeing ARM for always-connected devices with Windows on Snapdragon, and Qualcomm powering Windows dev kits, Intel faces multifaceted competition.
For mobile workers who create on the go, ARM devices offer stellar battery life without too many performance compromises. But when extreme power matters most, Intel still warrants consideration, though cooling demands may prove restrictive for ultrathin chassis.
So rather than viewing one architecture as "better" overall, recognize that ARM vs Intel brings differentiated strengths to suit different priorities. As software support for ARM matures and performance keeps rising, Intel‘s supremacy diminishes. But for now at least, both architectures have their place, providing welcome choice to consumers.
