I build ARM boards at KiwiPi, and I’ve lived in China long enough that most of the hardware around me is ARM. I’ve also read a fair number of x86 datasheets for customers who needed Windows, so when the ARM-versus-x86 question comes up, I’ve got an answer. It’s not really CISC versus RISC anymore, that fight is settled anyway. The real choice is software and power. Origins x86 is ancient. The instruction set goes back to 1978, it never broke compatibility, and it still runs inside every Intel and AMD chip. AMD added 64-bit in 2003 as x86-64, and Intel followed. Intel 8086 (1978): the instruction set that never stopped. Photo: Thomas Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 ARM went the other way. A small team in 1985 bet on cheap, low-power silicon for a British desktop, and by 1990 that design was a licensing company. ARM never made chips; it sold the idea, so Apple builds its own, Qualcomm builds its own, and others build their own. Even Rockchip does, following a path from MP3 players to SBCs. AArch64 went 64-bit in 2011, and Apple moved the Mac over in 2020. [caption id=”attachment_10485″ align=”aligncenter”

Buying a retro handheld should be simple. One chip is faster, so the handheld using that chip should be better. The Allwinner H700 and Rockchip RK3566 make that logic a little uncomfortable. RK3566 has newer Cortex-A55 CPU cores, a faster Mali-G52 GPU, better I/O, and an NPU. H700 uses older Cortex-A53 cores, weaker Mali-G31 graphics, and was originally designed as a low-cost multimedia processor. So RK3566 wins… except that many people shopping for an inexpensive handheld don’t actually need everything it wins at. The real question isn’t whether RK3566 is faster – it is. The question is whether that extra performance changes the games you want to play enough to justify a more expensive device, potentially higher power consumption, and a product whose software may still matter more than its processor. H700 vs RK3566 specifications The hardware difference is larger than the similar four-core layout suggests. H700 combines Cortex-A53 with Mali-G31 graphics. RK3566 moves to Cortex-A55 and Mali-G52, while adding features useful beyond handheld gaming. Feature Allwinner H700 Rockchip RK3566 CPU 4× Cortex-A53 4× Cortex-A55 Common maximum clock Around 1.5 GHz in handhelds Up to 1.8 GHz GPU Multicore Mali-G31 Mali-G52 2EE Graphics architecture Bifrost Bifrost Video decoding Up to

Allwinner H700 is not a new performance champion. It combines four Cortex-A53 CPU cores with a Mali-G31 GPU – hardware that looks modest beside modern mobile and embedded processors. For a broader Allwinner vs Rockchip comparison, see our detailed guide. Yet the chip has become remarkably common in affordable Linux gaming handhelds. This is not a case of an old processor being secretly fast. H700 succeeds because retro gaming has very different requirements from Android tablets, desktop Linux, or current-generation games. It offers enough CPU performance for older console emulation, a considerably newer GPU than many inexpensive Cortex-A53 platforms, and a capable multimedia subsystem without pushing device prices higher. That balance matters more than an impressive benchmark result. Allwinner H700 specifications Allwinner originally positioned H700 as a multimedia processor rather than a gaming-specific SoC. Its four 64-bit Cortex-A53 cores are paired with a multicore Mali-G31 GPU based on Arm’s Bifrost architecture. Feature Allwinner H700 CPU 4× Arm Cortex-A53 CPU architecture 64-bit Armv8-A Typical handheld clock Up to approximately 1.5 GHz GPU Multicore Arm Mali-G31 Graphics APIs OpenGL ES 3.2 and Vulkan 1.1 Video decoding Up to 4K at 60 fps, 10-bit Display interfaces HDMI 2.0, dual-link LVDS, RGB and CVBS

Arm Cortex-A53 has an unusual problem: it was so successful that manufacturers are still using its name to make inexpensive hardware sound current. A specification such as octa-core 64-bit CPU remains persuasive on a product page, even when all eight cores are Cortex-A53 designs from an earlier generation. That does not make Cortex-A53 a bad CPU. Its small size, low power requirements, 64-bit support, and mature software ecosystem made it one of the most useful Arm cores ever designed. But its strengths are now very specific. Cortex-A53 still works well when a device has a narrow job and dedicated hardware handles the demanding parts; it is much less convincing when the CPU itself must provide a responsive desktop or run modern applications. Cortex-A53 is a core, not a complete processor The first source of confusion is the name. Cortex-A53 is CPU intellectual property licensed by Arm, not a finished system-on-chip. A chip designer combines it with memory controllers, a GPU, media engines, networking, and other components, then chooses the clock speed and manufacturing process. This is why two Cortex-A53 devices can behave nothing alike. Core count, memory, cooling, and the media engine all vary. Features such as 4K video, HDR,

The Rockchip RK3568 is a difficult processor to sell with benchmark charts in 2026. It has four Cortex-A55 cores, a small Mali-G52 GPU, and none of the Cortex-A76 cores that make newer Rockchip boards feel noticeably faster. But CPU performance is only half the story. The RK3568 has PCIe, SATA, dual Gigabit Ethernet support, multiple display interfaces, optional ECC memory, and a small NPU. That combination explains why it continues to appear in industrial computers, network appliances, NVRs, and storage devices. It isn’t a good choice for a performance-focused desktop. For a product that needs useful I/O without the cost, heat, and complexity of an RK3588, it can still make sense. Four Cortex-A55 Cores Are Enough-Sometimes The RK3568 uses four Arm Cortex-A55 cores running at up to 2.0 GHz. Cortex-A55 is an efficient Armv8.2-A core, but it was designed for efficiency rather than strong single-threaded performance. The chip handles Linux services, network traffic, device control, media playback, and basic Android applications reasonably well. The limitations become obvious with heavier workloads. Large web pages, software compilation, CPU-based emulation, and complex desktop applications benefit from larger out-of-order cores. Even the older RK3399 can be faster in some CPU tasks because it includes