x86 vs Arm: Architectures Compared for Industrial and Embedded Systems

x86 vs Arm is the choice between the two instruction set architectures behind almost every industrial and embedded computer: x86, designed and built by Intel and AMD, and Arm, licensed by Arm to dozens of chip makers who build it into systems on chip. x86 offers the widest native software compatibility, standard firmware and plenty of expansion; Arm offers more performance per watt, highly integrated chips and very low power. Software decides most projects before performance does.

They are not just different brands. An instruction set architecture is the language a processor understands, so a program compiled for x86 will not run natively on Arm, and the reverse. The two also come with different commercial models, boot processes and maintenance habits, and those differences matter more over a ten-year industrial deployment than any benchmark.

This guide compares x86 and Arm on the terms that matter for an industrial or embedded project: architecture, power, software and driver compatibility, emulation, boot and firmware, long-term maintenance, the processor families on industrial boards, and a decision table with worked examples. For a deeper look at the Arm side, see our guide to Arm processors in embedded and industrial systems.

The table compares the two as they appear in industrial and embedded computers today. Individual chips vary, so treat the ranges as typical.

Neither column is better in general. The right column is the one your software, power budget and lifecycle point to, which is why the rest of this guide spends more time on software and maintenance than on speed.

x86 began as a CISC (complex instruction set computing) design: instructions vary in length and a single instruction can do several steps, such as loading from memory and adding. Arm is a RISC (reduced instruction set computing) design: fixed-length, simpler instructions, with memory accessed by separate load and store instructions. In the 1980s that difference shaped the whole chip.

Today it shapes much less. Modern x86 cores decode their instructions into simpler internal micro-operations and execute them on RISC-like hardware, while high-end Arm cores have grown wide, deep and complex. The power gap now comes mostly from design choices around the instruction set: how wide the cores are, how high they clock, how much is integrated on one chip and how aggressively idle parts are switched off. A CPU built for 6 W behaves very differently from one built for 65 W, whatever its instruction set.

Both are 64-bit today. Our explainer on 32-bit vs 64-bit covers why that matters for memory and software, and older 32-bit Arm (Armv7) boards are still found in long-running installations.

What about RISC-V?

RISC-V is a third instruction set: open and royalty-free, governed by RISC-V International, so any company can design a core without a license fee. It is already common in microcontrollers and in management cores inside larger chips, and application processors that run Linux are appearing. For industrial PCs it is still early, with a small software base and few long-life parts, but it is worth watching for future embedded designs.

Software is usually the deciding factor. On x86, essentially every Windows and Linux application of the last thirty years runs natively. On Arm, native software runs very well, and Linux on Arm is mature, but anything compiled only for x86 has to be recompiled or emulated. The checks below catch most problems early.

For a new application written for the target, Arm is no barrier: modern compilers, Python, Node.js, .NET and Java all support both. For a system that must run an existing x86 binary, a control package or a driver for an expansion card, x86 removes the question. That is also why Windows IoT Enterprise systems in industry are overwhelmingly x86.

Applications, often; drivers, no. Emulation translates x86 instructions into Arm instructions as a program runs, and it has improved a great deal, but it has limits.

Emulated code typically runs slower than native code, with Microsoft and reviewers often reporting around 70 to 80% of native speed for Prism, depending on the application. For an HMI or a business application that may be acceptable. For a real-time control loop or a driver, it is not. Windows on Arm itself runs on selected Qualcomm processors; the AVerMedia QL601 series on the Qualcomm QCS6490 is offered with Qualcomm Linux, Windows 11 IoT LTSC or Android 13 by order code, and some options, such as the cellular module and MIPI camera inputs, are not available on every operating system.

This is the difference that matters most over the life of an industrial fleet, and the one consumer comparisons ignore. An x86 computer boots through a UEFI BIOS that describes the hardware to the operating system in a standard way (ACPI), so a standard Windows or Linux image boots on almost any x86 board. Most embedded Arm boards boot through U-Boot with a device tree that describes that specific board, and the operating system is built for it.

None of this makes Arm harder to deploy if it is planned. Embedded Linux on Arm is how most connected industrial devices are built, and a well-maintained BSP or Yocto build can run for many years. But it has to be owned: someone must track the vendor kernel, apply security fixes and rebuild the image. On x86 more of that work is done by the operating system vendor. Arm’s SystemReady program narrows the gap by bringing UEFI to Arm boards. Our explainer on embedded Linux covers the build side, and for Jetson the NVIDIA software stack is covered in our guide to JetPack.

Both architectures provide the building blocks for secure, deterministic industrial systems, but they package them differently.

The i.MX 8M Plus is a good example of the Arm approach: alongside its Cortex-A53 application cores it carries a Cortex-M7 core that can run a real-time task independently of Linux. On x86 the same job is usually done with real-time extensions on the main cores, as on Atom x7000E processors with Intel TCC. For hypervisor-based consolidation of several workloads on one computer, x86 remains the more common choice, with more memory and mature tools.

Industrial projects often need to rebuild the same computer for seven to ten years or more, so the processor’s availability matters as much as its speed. Both architectures offer long-life parts, but the commitments come from different places.

On x86, Intel and AMD publish embedded versions of their processors with extended availability, typically several years longer than the consumer parts on the same silicon; AMD quotes up to ten years of planned availability for many Ryzen Embedded processors. On Arm, availability depends on the chip maker. NXP runs a product longevity program with 10- and 15-year commitments for many i.MX processors, and TI offers long availability on its Sitara range, while some SoCs designed first for consumer devices have shorter or less formal commitments. Whichever architecture you choose, check the commitment for the exact part number, and plan the operating system image for the same span, as our guide to how long computers last explains.

These are the families you are most likely to meet in industrial computers and boards. Power figures are typical for the processor; NPU ratings are manufacturers’ figures.

For more on each vendor, see our NXP, Rockchip and Qualcomm ranges on the Arm side, and our Intel and AMD ranges on x86. Our guide to what a system on chip is explains why Arm designs integrate so much on one die.

x86 is not standing still against Arm. Intel and AMD both run embedded roadmaps with long-life versions of their processors, and the newest parts add NPUs and stronger integrated graphics, which closes some of the integration gap. In October 2024 the two companies also formed an x86 advisory group with software and hardware vendors to keep the instruction set consistent across future processors, which matters to anyone planning ten years of software on x86. Our article on Intel and AMD uniting for x86 embedded computing covers that group and the embedded x86 families behind it.

At the low-power end, Atom x7000E processors run within 6 to 12 W, which brings x86 into fanless gateways and DIN rail controllers once considered Arm territory. The DFI EC700-ADN series, for example, runs an Atom x7425E at 12 W with Intel TCC for deterministic control and soldered LPDDR5 memory, in a slim fanless chassis. For how x86 generations line up, see our guide to CPU generations and embedded processors.

Sometimes. The table matches common industrial situations to the architecture that usually fits. It is a starting point; a project can have reasons to go the other way.

A worked example: a water utility needs 200 outstation gateways reading Modbus and DNP3 devices, sending data over 4G, on a 12 V supply with solar backup and a ten-year life. A Linux gateway on an NXP i.MX 8M Plus, such as the DFI M8MP553 series rated from −30 to 80 °C on 9–36 V DC, fits the power budget and the lifecycle. The same utility’s control room, running a Windows SCADA client and a historian, stays on x86. At a treatment works with eight cameras for intrusion detection, an Arm-based Jetson computer does the AI. Three sites, both architectures, each where it fits.

Mixed fleets need one discipline: build and test an image for each architecture, and keep both in the same update process. That is part of the work we do when we configure and image computers for a rollout.

These four show the two architectures at similar sizes, so the trade-offs are easy to see. We configure the BIOS or bootloader, build and image the operating system, whether Windows, a Linux distribution or a Yocto build, and test the complete computer before it ships.

Comparing the four makes the usual pattern clear: the x86 systems take more memory and run Windows; the Arm boards integrate video, camera and serial I/O on the SoC at lower power and run Linux or Android.