ARM vs. Intel: Software Compatibility on Windows, Chromebook & Android

The Shifting Landscape of Processor Architectures

Historically, Intel’s x86 or x64 processors have been the standard for laptops and desktop computers. Conversely, ARM processors were predominantly utilized in devices requiring lower power consumption, such as embedded systems, smartphones, and tablets.

However, this distinction is becoming increasingly blurred. Currently, it is possible to purchase laptops equipped with ARM-based chips, and smartphones powered by Intel processors are also available.

Understanding Architectural Differences

ARM and Intel represent fundamentally different and mutually incompatible processor architectures. This means software designed for one architecture will not natively run on the other.

When selecting a device running Windows, Android, or Chrome OS, a key consideration is the underlying processor architecture: ARM or Intel x86/x64.

Software Compatibility Considerations

The choice between these architectures significantly impacts software compatibility. Applications need to be specifically compiled for the target architecture to ensure optimal performance and functionality.

Therefore, understanding this difference is crucial when making a purchasing decision, as it can affect the range of software you can utilize on your device.

• Intel x86/x64: Traditionally used in PCs.
• ARM: Commonly found in mobile devices, now expanding into laptops.

Software compatibility remains a primary factor when deciding between devices utilizing these distinct processor types.

ARM vs. Intel: An Overview of Their Evolution

Traditionally, Intel processors have been recognized for superior performance capabilities. However, this has often come at the cost of higher power draw and increased price points.

Conversely, ARM processors have long been favored for their exceptional energy efficiency and affordability, though they historically lagged behind Intel in raw processing power.

This distinction isn't new; a decade ago, mobile phones commonly utilized ARM chips, while desktop computers predominantly featured Intel processors.

It’s important to note that this comparison encompasses AMD processors as well. AMD’s chips also rely on the x86 – now x64 – architecture originally developed by Intel.

The Performance Shift of ARM

ARM chips have experienced substantial gains in performance over recent years. Devices like iPhones, iPads, and the vast majority of Android smartphones and tablets are powered by ARM processors, prioritizing low energy consumption.

ARM began with a focus on cost-effectiveness and low power, progressively enhancing performance. This evolution is clearly demonstrated by the increasing speed and capabilities of modern smartphones and tablets.

Intel's Response to ARM

Recognizing its disadvantage in the mobile space, Intel has made significant strides in reducing the power consumption of its x86 and x64 chips.

Intel’s latest Haswell processors, for example, delivered substantial improvements in battery life for laptop computers.

Initially focused on high performance and a higher price, Intel has been working to lower power usage and increase the competitiveness of its entry-level offerings.

Convergence and the Blurring Lines

As ARM and Intel chips converge in their capabilities, the distinctions between them are becoming less pronounced.

This difference is a crucial consideration when selecting a device, whether it runs Windows, ChromeOS, or Android.

Understanding Software Incompatibilities: A Core Issue

The fundamental difference between ARM and Intel processors lies in their distinct processor architectures and instruction sets. Consequently, software built for one architecture is not directly executable on the other.

Attempting to run an application compiled for the Intel architecture on an ARM-based computer will fail, and conversely, ARM-compiled code is incompatible with Intel systems.

Implications for Various Devices

This incompatibility presents challenges across a range of computing platforms. It significantly impacts Windows devices, particularly those transitioning to ARM-based processors.

Furthermore, the issue extends to Chromebooks utilizing desktop Linux programs, as well as Android devices, where application compatibility is crucial.

The core problem stems from the fact that each processor type 'speaks' a different language when it comes to instructions. Software is written in this language, making cross-platform execution impossible without translation or recompilation.

• Processor Architecture: The underlying design of the CPU.
• Instruction Set: The set of commands the CPU understands.

Therefore, developers must create separate versions of their software tailored to each processor architecture to ensure broad compatibility. This adds complexity and cost to the software development process.

Windows 8 and Windows RT: A Comparative Overview

The majority of Windows-powered devices utilize the complete Windows 8 operating system, coupled with an Intel processor. However, a segment of devices, notably the Microsoft Surface 2, Surface RT, and the Nokia Lumia 2520 tablet, are equipped with ARM processors.

These ARM-based devices operate using Microsoft’s Windows RT platform.

Key Differences and Limitations

Windows RT possesses significant restrictions, notably its inability to execute standard, non-Microsoft desktop applications. This design choice by Microsoft involved deliberately limiting functionality. They opted against enabling developers to adapt and recompile existing applications for the ARM architecture.

Had they permitted this, users would have been restricted to installing Windows desktop applications specifically compiled for ARM processors, rendering the vast majority of existing software incompatible.

The Rationale Behind the Restrictions

Microsoft faced the challenge of establishing a new software ecosystem for Windows on ARM. Allowing traditional desktop applications would have likely caused confusion, with users attempting to install Intel-based software on their ARM systems.

Ultimately, a decision was made to depart from previous practices and completely restrict the desktop environment. However, the complete removal of the desktop from Windows RT has been hindered by the lack of an Office suite fully compatible with the modern user interface.

Application Compatibility

On Windows RT devices, new applications can only be installed via the Windows Store. While most Windows Store apps are designed for cross-platform compatibility, some may be exclusively optimized for Intel processors.

Essentially, Windows RT, running on ARM processors, is constrained in its capabilities, preventing the installation of conventional desktop software.

Intel Chromebooks Versus ARM Chromebooks

Chromebooks are available with either Intel or ARM processors. For example, Samsung’s Series 3 Chromebook and the HP Chromebook 11 utilize ARM chips, while a significant number of other models are powered by Intel.

Within the Chrome OS environment, the processor type generally has minimal impact on performance. The core Chrome browser and web applications function identically on both ARM and Intel-based devices.

Essential services like Flash and Netflix are fully compatible with ARM Chromebooks. Chrome OS, unlike Windows, lacks the extensive legacy that can create compatibility issues with ARM architecture.

However, a substantial difference emerges when considering the installation of desktop Linux in developer mode. Historically, Linux has been optimized for Intel processors, leading to limitations when deployed on ARM systems.

While much of the software available is open-source and can be recompiled for ARM, closed-source applications often lack this adaptability and will only operate on Intel-based Chromebooks.

Consider applications such as the desktop Linux version of Adobe Flash, Steam with its extensive game library, Microsoft Skype for Linux, and Minecraft. These can be installed and run in developer mode on an Intel Chromebook, but are incompatible with ARM-based devices.

If you anticipate utilizing your Chromebook as a Linux system, an Intel-based model is generally recommended, unless your needs are limited to open-source utilities.

It’s important to note the distinction: Flash functions within the Chrome OS environment on an ARM Chromebook, but cannot be installed within a desktop Linux environment on the same device.

Key Takeaway: Chrome OS operates effectively with an ARM chip, but the capabilities of a desktop Linux system in developer mode are significantly restricted.

Android on Intel versus Android on ARM

Traditionally, Android-powered smartphones and tablets have utilized ARM processors. However, Intel has consistently pursued a shift in this landscape, showcasing and releasing Android devices equipped with their own chips.

Currently, Intel anticipates a forthcoming wave of Android tablets featuring their Bay Trail processors. These devices potentially offer enhanced performance compared to their ARM counterparts, though software compatibility remains a consideration.

App Compatibility Considerations

The majority of Android applications are built using the Android SDK and operate within the Dalvik virtual machine. Consequently, most apps are designed to function seamlessly with both ARM and Intel processors.

However, certain applications leverage the Android NDK – the native development kit – to incorporate native ARM code, aiming to maximize performance, particularly in demanding applications like games.

Apps that rely on ARM-specific code are generally incompatible with Android devices based on Intel’s x86 or x64 architecture.

In 2012, Intel reported compatibility with 95% of Android applications [Source]. While a substantial figure, it indicates that 5% of Android apps may not function on Intel-based devices.

This potential incompatibility could prove frustrating if a desired game or application is unavailable on an Intel-powered Android device.

Key Takeaway

Android devices featuring Intel processors are capable of running the vast majority of Android applications, but ARM-based devices guarantee compatibility with all available apps.

The underlying chip architecture of a device is a crucial factor to consider during the purchasing process.

Avoiding compatibility issues is essential – whether it's ensuring application installation on a Windows device, running Linux programs on a Chromebook, or playing preferred games on an Android tablet.

Apple's Approach

Apple’s hardware strategy is more straightforward. All current Mac computers utilize Intel chips, while iPhones, iPads, and other mobile devices exclusively employ ARM processors.

Image Credit: huangjiahui on Flickr, Orde Saunders on Flickr, Torsten Maue on Flickr, Cheon Fong Liew on Flickr