今天，大多数计算设备可能要么拥有使用x86 设计(x86 design)的处理器，如英特尔处理器，要么拥有ARM（高级 RISC 机器）设计(ARM (Advanced RISC Machine) design)，如智能手机或平板电脑的CPU。ARM CPU(ARM CPUs)也将其用于笔记本电脑。
如今，您可以在配备Intel或AMD处理器 ( x86 ) 的计算机或配备ARM处理器的设备之间进行选择。那么，当谈到ARM与Intel处理器时，哪个更好呢？
ARM 与英特尔：不同的起源
现代英特尔(Intel)和基于 ARM 的CPU(CPUs)可以将其技术追溯到 1980 年代初投放市场的计算机中的早期芯片，特别是Acorn Computers BBC Micro和第一台IBM PC中的英特尔 8088 。(Intel 8088)这些为现代 两种主要的CPU设计铺平了道路。
重要的是要注意，虽然它们有两条独立的进化路线，但它们融合在我们今天使用这些CPU(CPUs)的内容中。
RISC 与 CISC
在幕后，英特尔(Intel)和基于 ARM 的CPU之间的主要区别在于每个设备可以理解的指令类型。基于 ARM 的CPU(CPUs)是RISC（精简指令集计算机）(RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer))设备，英特尔 CPU 是CISC（复杂指令集计算机）(CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) )设备。RISC和CISC设计在处理器工作方式上有所不同。在Intel（和AMD）CPU(CPUs)中，它们使用称为 x86的CISC指令集。(CISC)
然而，它们的大部分优点和缺点都来自于RISC设备处理短、简单、统一长度的指令，而CISC设备将许多指令组合成一次处理的长而复杂的指令。
软件兼容性
英特尔(Intel)处理器无法理解ARM代码，反之亦然。因此，必须专门为一种类型的处理器编写操作系统和软件。
用于一种CPU的软件可以在另一种 CPU上运行，但这通常会导致性能和效率低下的巨大损失。
苹果的Rosetta 2(Rosetta 2)代码翻译软件是个例外。他们的定制ARM CPU(ARM CPUs)专为Rosetta 2设计，并允许为基于 Intel 的Mac(Macs)设计的近乎无缝的软件执行。总体而言， (Overall)Rosetta 2的性能损失很低，但并不完美。
一个更典型的例子是微软基于 ARM 的 Surface(ARM-based Surface)设备。当这些尝试通过仿真运行 x86 代码时，性能影响非常严重，以至于软件可能无法使用。
能量消耗
与Intel和其他 x86 处理器相比，基于ARM的(ARM)CPU(CPUs)的显着优势是功耗。事实证明，RISC方法以及ARM设计的特定创新造就了极其节俭的CPU(CPUs)。这就是ARM主导智能手机和平板电脑市场的原因。
这就是为什么您可以通过手机获得 24 小时或更长时间，而如果幸运的话，配备更大电池的英特尔笔记本电脑可能只能使用几个小时。(Intel)当然，如果搭配M1 Mac的话，可以实现接近 20 小时的电影播放，这对于笔记本电脑来说已经非常了不起了。
纯粹的表现
当您从等式中排除功耗时，就像插入电源的计算机一样，英特尔(Intel)和其他x86 CISC处理器在基于 ARM 的RISC CPU(RISC CPUs)上表现出色。
但是，由于智能手机和平板电脑的兴起，大量资金投入到ARM CPU开发中，因此(ARM CPU)ARM CPU(ARM CPUs)的性能每代都呈指数级增长。
中端(Mid-range)智能手机在计算能力方面现在已经超过了“足够好”的门槛，功能强大到足以满足用户的日常需求。
每瓦性能
如果我们将叙述改为ARM CPU(ARM CPU)消耗的每一瓦能量可以做多少工作，那么 x86 Intel CPU(Intel CPUs)的情况看起来就不那么好了。尽管英特尔等公司一直在努力为其(Intel)CPU(CPUs)制造节能高效的模型，但仍然存在差距。
考虑上面的比较。Intel i7-9750H 的热设计功耗 (TDP) 为 45W ，而(Thermal Design Power)骁龙(TDP)888的(Snapdragon 888)TDP为 10W 。然而，888 达到了它的基准性能。
当所有分数都参与时， ARM CPU仍然设法匹配高端笔记本电脑英特尔 CPU 分数的 75%。请记住，ARM CPU没有主动冷却功能，位于智能手机内部。对于具有主动冷却和四倍以上TDP的大型笔记本电脑设备而言，具有如此相对较小的性能优势，鲜明地证明了这些技术之间的每瓦性能差异。
核心对称
ARM方面的一个令人兴奋的优势是使用非对称CPU 内核(CPU cores)。英特尔(Intel)和其他 x86 处理器具有多个但相同的内核。但是，ARM CPU(ARM CPUs)通常具有多个但不同的内核。
例如，智能手机中的 8 核ARM CPU可能有四个低功耗内核，这些内核的速度足以应付日常任务，例如浏览网页、观看视频、听音乐和处理小型后台任务。一旦您启动视频游戏，或开始进行照片编辑等内容创建工作，四个高性能CPU(CPUs)就会启动。
这意味着您可以根据需要在短时间内获得高峰值性能的优势，并在电池充电周期内享受平均较长的电池寿命。
ARM 是未来吗？
当谈到这些CPU技术时，我们提出的主要问题是“哪个(Which)是最好的？” 正如您所料，答案是“视情况而定”。我们可以肯定地说，只要电源不是问题，x86 Intel（和AMD）CPU就会统治。(CPUs)因此，如果它插入墙壁并且不依赖电池工作，那么这些CPU(CPUs)就是要使用的。
今天，在便携式计算机世界中，事情还不是很清楚。ARM最大的缺点不是性能，而是软件兼容性。这是Apple通过Rosetta 2解决的问题，对于Microsoft来说，这是一个高度优先事项。假设软件将在ARM系统上运行而没有显着（如果有的话）性能损失，它提供了性能与电池寿命的最佳平衡。
如果操作正确，您将获得一台计算机，例如M1 MacBook Pro。作为通用计算机，它的功能绰绰有余，甚至可以处理视频编辑(video editing)等专业任务——其性能水平可以使用电池维持 20 小时！如果您想了解有关 M1 的更多信息，请查看M1 与 i7：基准战(M1 vs i7: The Benchmark Battles)。
ARM vs. Intel Processors: Which Is The Best?
Today, mоst computing devicеs arе lіkely to either have a processor using the x86 design, like Intel processors, or the ARM (Advanced RISC Machine) design as in the CPU in your smartphone or tablet. ARM CPUs are also making it into laptops.
These days you can choose between a computer with an Intel or AMD processor (x86) or a device with an ARM processor. So when it comes to ARM vs. Intel processors, which is better?
ARM vs. Intel: Differing Origins
Modern Intel and ARM-based CPUs can trace their technologies back to early chips in computers brought to market in the early 1980s, specifically the Acorn Computers BBC Micro and the Intel 8088 found in the first IBM PC. These paved the way for the two main CPU designs of modern times.
It is important to note that while they have two separate evolutionary lines, they converge in what we use these CPUs for today.
RISC vs CISC
Under the hood, the main difference between an Intel and ARM-based CPU is the type of instruction that each device understands. ARM-based CPUs are RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) devices and Intel CPUs are CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) devices. RISC and CISC designs differ in how processors do their work. In Intel (and AMD) CPUs they use a CISC instruction set known as x86.
However, most of their strengths and weaknesses come from the fact that RISC devices handle short, simple, uniform-length instructions while CISC devices combine many instructions into long, complex instructions processed all at once.
Software Compatibility
Intel processors can’t understand ARM code and vice versa. So, the operating system and software have to be written specifically for one type of processor.
It is possible for software meant for one type of CPU to be run on the other, but this usually comes with large penalties in performance and inefficiency.
The exception to this is Apple’s Rosetta 2 code translation software. Their custom ARM CPUs have been designed specifically with Rosetta 2 in mind and allow for near seamless software execution designed for Intel-based Macs. Overall, the performance penalty with Rosetta 2 is low, while not being perfect.
A more typical example is Microsoft’s ARM-based Surface devices. When these try to run x86 code through emulation, the performance impact is so severe that the software may be unusable.
Power Consumption
The significant advantage of ARM-based CPUs over Intel and other x86 processors is power consumption. It turns out that the RISC approach along with the specific innovation of ARM’s design makes for incredibly frugal CPUs. This is why ARM has dominated the smartphone and tablet markets.
It’s why you can get 24 hours or more from your phone, while your Intel laptop with its larger battery may only last a few hours, if you’re lucky. Of course, if you go with an M1 Mac, you can get close to 20 hours of movie playback, which is very impressive for a laptop.
Pure Performance
When you take power consumption out of the equation, as with a computer plugged into the mains, Intel and other x86 CISC processors stomp all over ARM-based RISC CPUs.
But, since so much money is going into ARM CPU development thanks to the rise of smartphones and tablets, the performance of ARM CPUs has been increasing exponentially with each generation.
Mid-range smartphones have now passed the “good enough” threshold in terms of computing power and are powerful enough to meet user needs on a day-to-day basis.
Performance Per Watt
If we change the narrative to how much work an ARM CPU can do for every watt of energy it consumes, things don’t look so good for x86 Intel CPUs. Although companies like Intel have worked hard to make power-efficient efficient models of their CPUs, there’s still a gap.
Consider the above comparison. The Intel i7-9750H has a 45W Thermal Design Power (TDP) while the Snapdragon 888 has a 10W TDP. Yet, the 888 comes within reach of it’s benchmark performance.
The ARM CPU still manages to match 75% of the high-end laptop Intel CPU’s score when all scores are engaged. Keep in mind that the ARM CPU has no active cooling and is nestled inside a smartphone. For a large laptop device with active cooling and more than four times the TDP to have such a relatively small performance advantage starkly demonstrates the performance-per-watt difference between these technologies.
Core Symmetry
An exciting advantage on the ARM side of things is the use of asymmetrical CPU cores. Intel and other x86 processors have multiple, but identical, cores. However, it’s common for ARM CPUs to have multiple, but different, cores.
For example, an 8-core ARM CPU in a smartphone may have four low-power cores that are fast enough for everyday tasks such as browsing the web, watching a video, listening to music and handling small background tasks. As soon as you start up a video game, or begin doing content creation work like photo editing, the four high-performance CPUs kick in.
This means that you can have the advantage of high peak performance in short bursts as needed and also enjoy long battery life averaged out over a battery charge cycle.
Is ARM the Future?
The main question we posed when it comes to these CPU technologies was “Which is the Best?” and as you might expect the answer is “it depends”. We can say with certainty is that x86 Intel (and AMD) CPUs rule whenever power is a non-issue. So if it’s plugged into the wall and doesn’t rely on a battery to work, these are the CPUs to go for.
Today, in the portable computer world, things aren’t quite as clear. ARM’s biggest drawback isn’t performance, but software compatibility. This is something that Apple has solved with Rosetta 2 and for Microsoft is a high priority. Assuming that software will run on an ARM system without significant (if any) performance penalty, it offers the best balance of performance vs battery life.
When done right, you get a computer such as the M1 MacBook Pro. It is more than powerful enough as a general-purpose computer and can even take on professional tasks such as video editing — a level of performance it can sustain for 20 hours on battery! If you want more information on the M1, check out M1 vs i7: The Benchmark Battles.
