In the field of chip architecture, the comparison between RISC-V and ARM has evolved from a mere technical selection to a strategic debate over pathways. On one side is RISC-V: open-source, royalty-free, highly customizable, and free from control by a single vendor. On the other is ARM: mature, stable, with a complete ecosystem, dominating mainstream industrial and edge computing applications.
Although RISC-V appears more "advanced" on paper, why do the industry and engineering projects still overwhelmingly choose ARM? This article dissects the issue from the perspectives of architectural features, software ecosystem, engineering costs, and risks, incorporating the latest industry developments as of 2025.
RISC-V is not proprietary technology owned by any company but an open-source Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) maintained by RISC-V International (a non-profit organization):
From the perspective of "ownership" and geopolitical strategy, RISC-V indeed surpasses ARM, particularly in regions with strong demands for independent control (such as Chinese industrial projects). In 2025, the RISC-V market is growing rapidly, with expected shipments reaching tens of billions of cores, especially in embedded and coprocessor scenarios.
| Aspect | ARM | RISC-V |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | Dominated by ARM Ltd., unified evolution pace | Open-source modular (Base + Extensions), encourages custom additions |
| Consistency | Highly stable instruction set and ABI | Significant implementation variations, weaker portability |
| Strengths | Favors universal software ecosystem and cross-generation compatibility | Favors highly customized SoCs |
ARM's strong consistency ensures binary software compatibility, while RISC-V's modularity is better suited for specific optimizations. In industrial applications, consistency often takes priority over extreme flexibility.
In industrial and edge computing, CPU performance is rarely the bottleneck—software ecosystem is the key.
In engineering practice, RISC-V's fragmentation leads to higher debugging and adaptation costs. In 2025, RISC-V has matured in embedded and AI accelerator ecosystems but remains behind ARM for general-purpose Linux edge controllers.
A common misconception: ARM has high licensing fees, while RISC-V is free. Actual cost structure:
| Item | ARM | RISC-V |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture Licensing | One-time fee | Zero licensing fee |
| Software Adaptation/Debugging | Low (mature BSPs and toolchains) | High (large vendor differences, more manpower/time) |
| Project Delay Risk | Low | High |
| Overall Engineering Cost | Licensing fees far outweighed by avoided uncertainty losses | Hidden costs often higher |
In industrial projects, delays and uncertainties are far more expensive than licensing fees. ARM offers lower risk in rapid mass production and long-term supply scenarios.
ARM's advantages lie not just in technical specs but in system-level capabilities:
Thus, in industrial gateways, edge controllers, and robot main controllers, ARM remains the "default choice." In 2025, even as RISC-V rapidly closes the performance gap, ARM still leads in mainstream industrial market share.
Based on engineering experience and industry trends, RISC-V is better suited for:
Less suitable for:
In 2025, RISC-V has high penetration in coprocessors and embedded areas (e.g., internal use by NVIDIA/Google), but main processors still need time to catch up.
If your system requires:
As of 2025, ARM remains the lowest-risk option. RISC-V is more appropriately positioned as control plane/coprocessor or next-generation technology reserve.
Beilai Technology focuses on industrial IoT and edge computing products. The core reasons for choosing ARM architecture in the ARM Industrial Gateway ARMxy series:
At the same time, we perform deep engineering optimization on BSPs/drivers to ensure production-grade field stability. We continuously monitor RISC-V development, using it as an optional scheme for control/coprocessors and future reserves.
Using ARM to address current delivery needs while positioning RISC-V for future evolution—this is the pragmatic logic behind the ARMxy series' architecture choice. Looking ahead to 2030, as the RISC-V ecosystem further matures (e.g., full RVA23 adoption), industry choices will become more diversified.
