Previously, I reviewed the Firefly Station PC M3 and also got my hands on the LattePanda 3 Delta. After checking the configurations of these two development boards, I thought a comparison would be interesting, and thus this article was born.
This article has been published as a video on Bilibili. If you prefer watching over reading, you can copy the BV number to the app or search for it directly on Bilibili. Don’t forget to follow and like after watching!
BV1YR4y197FK
Let me clarify that this comparison is not very rigorous.
The configuration of the Station M3 is the 16+256G version, while the LattePanda 3 Delta is the 8+64 version. The prices are also different: the M3 is priced at 3049, while the LattePanda is 1999. However, the M3’s 8+64G version is priced at 2049. So, performance comparison should not be a problem.
Let’s first look at the CPU performance and graphics performance of these two development boards.
First, let’s introduce the classic benchmark, GeekBench5.
The RK3588S SoC of the Station M3 scored 466 in single-core and 2130 in multi-core under the Station system.
The Celeron N5105 CPU of the LattePanda 3 Delta scored 641 in single-core and 2044 in multi-core.
It can be seen that the x86 architecture CPU is quite strong in single-core performance. The multi-core scores are basically on par, as expected, with the big cores struggling and the small cores observing in the ARM.
It is worth noting that the ITX-3588J I tested previously scored higher than the Station M3. It seems that adding a fan would improve performance.
Next is the graphics performance, which is quite interesting.
The LattePanda scored 3666 points.
The M3 scored 3843 points.
The ITX-3588J I tested previously actually scored over 4000 points.
The conclusion is that the single-core performance of the Station M3 is not as good as the LattePanda 3 Delta, while the multi-core performance is on par with the LattePanda 3 Delta. The graphics performance of the M3 is somewhat stronger. Honestly, I feel that Intel’s CPU is a bit overestimated, not as strong as imagined. These two can basically be considered on par.
I tried playing Genshin Impact to verify that the graphics performance of the LattePanda 3 Delta is indeed weaker.
It is important to note that under Windows, you can switch to any resolution, but unless you drop to a resolution of 640×480, you cannot exceed 40 frames in Genshin Impact.
However, on the M3, playing Genshin Impact with all effects on, it can still run smoothly at around 40 frames, which the M3 wins at.
(The M3’s resolution is estimated to be at 720P, so it can be said that the M3 has a great victory.)
Summary
The feeling is that you get what you pay for. The advantage of x86 architecture CPUs is that they were born early and have accumulated many software and ecological advantages.
Since only Intel and AMD produce x86 processors, they enjoy good universality. Their deep cooperation with Microsoft also brings good hardware compatibility. Additionally, the high frequency and strong performance accumulated during the development of the x86 architecture are advantages.
These advantages are hard for the ARM architecture to achieve.
However, purely from the perspective of performance and cost-effectiveness, the gap is not as big as before. Now there are also some ARM architecture laptops and servers. Moreover, a major player like Apple has completely shifted to ARM, which not only enhances performance but also significantly improves energy efficiency.
The advantages of ARM are lower power consumption, less heat, lower barriers to entry, cheaper prices, and smaller sizes.
Some may say that this 2000 yuan development board is not cheap. But look at how much Rock5B costs; if you previously bought a discount coupon, you can get RK3588 for less than 600. This only indicates that ARM has a large premium space. Once production increases, price reductions are inevitable. The trend of RK3588 can basically be referenced to RK3399. Now you can buy a development board for RK3399 for three to four hundred.
Moreover, there are quite a few core boards for RK3588. If you want to customize some hardware and functions, it is much more comfortable and worry-free than the x86 architecture. From the perspective of development boards, ARM development boards are indeed the best choice currently.
As for Intel’s development boards, they are more likely to be used as a testing and development computer, essentially a simplification and delegation of a computer. Development will still be done on a computer, and finally tested on the development board to check software compatibility, leaving little room for hardware performance.
If viewed as part of a product, ARM development boards are still more suitable. They can provide you with a broader scope for development.
That’s all for today. If you liked it, remember to like it. If you have any thoughts, feel free to leave a comment, and see you next time.
Firefly Station PC M3
https://m.tb.cn/h.UXcwPbB?tk=y6RU2xmqtSs
DFRobot LattePanda 3 Delta
https://m.tb.cn/h.U25kav1?tk=qtYA2y93WA5
Recently, we have created a development board selection website. Although it is not yet perfect, we have already recorded around 400 different development boards. If you are interested or have any needs, you can check out our selection website. If you have any good suggestions, you can also mention them in the group or leave us a message.
Recently, we have launched a Raspberry Pi alternative section, so feel free to check it out.
The domain name of our website is: findboard.cn
(We have not yet adapted for mobile devices, so if you are accessing from a mobile phone, the experience may not be very satisfactory. We temporarily recommend using a computer browser for access.)