In today’s digital world, choosing the right server infrastructure is the foundation of efficient business operations. Processor architecture, virtualization capabilities and system scalability directly affect the operational efficiency, security and maintenance costs of an IT environment. There are three main processor architectures dominating the market today: x86 (Intel, AMD), IBM Power and the increasingly popular ARM, all of which offer distinct approaches to data processing.
This guide examines the differences between these architectures, enabling you to make informed decisions about your IT infrastructure. We will analyze the technical, economic and operational aspects of each solution, focusing on their practical application in modern data centers. Whether you’re planning to upgrade your existing infrastructure or designing a new environment, understanding the advantages and limitations of each architecture is key to optimally aligning the technology with your business needs.
We will also discuss how virtualization transforms the capabilities of all architectures, increasing their flexibility and cost effectiveness. We will present use cases where a particular architecture can provide an advantage, taking into account factors such as workload type, availability requirements, security and future scalability. Processor and server parameters come exclusively from vendor documentation - the sources are listed at the end of the article.
Shortcuts
- What are the differences between x86 and RISC architectures in the context of physical servers?
- Why do Intel and AMD processors dominate x86 solutions?
- What advantages do IBM Power servers offer over x86 solutions?
- How does virtualization improve the efficiency of x86-based infrastructure?
- How does IBM Power’s RISC architecture affect computing performance?
- What to look for when choosing between multicore and single-threaded performance?
- How do virtualization technologies work with different processor architectures?
- Why do IBM Power servers perform better in high-availability environments?
- How do you compare the costs of maintaining x86 and IBM Power infrastructure over a 5-year horizon?
- In what business scenarios can choosing RISC be a strategic advantage?
- How does hardware security differentiate x86 and IBM Power architectures?
- How to effectively manage heterogeneous environments with x86 and RISC?
- The future of x86 and RISC architecture in an era of digital transformation
- Key findings - how to choose the optimal architecture for your organization?
- Summary - the place of x86 and RISC architectures in the modern data center
What are the differences between x86 and RISC architectures in the context of physical servers?
Historically, the x86 architecture (developed by Intel and AMD) was based on a complex instruction set (CISC - Complex Instruction Set Computing), while architectures such as IBM Power and ARM used a reduced instruction set (RISC - Reduced Instruction Set Computing). However, modern x86 processors have evolved significantly - they now use an internal RISC-like microarchitecture that translates complex x86 instructions into simpler micro-operations executed by the processor core. The line between CISC and RISC has thus become significantly blurred at the implementation level.
Despite the convergence at the microarchitecture level, design differences remain. x86 processors have retained backward compatibility with previous generations, which means supporting older functions and instructions. IBM Power and ARM processors do not carry that baggage. How much this difference matters in practice depends on the workload - vendors do not publish cross-architecture comparisons that can be transferred directly to a specific application, which is why this guide does not give “performance per watt” ratios between platforms.
At the multithreading level, the differences are well documented. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H has 60 cores and 120 threads, i.e. 2 threads per core (Intel ARK). The AMD EPYC 9654 has 96 cores and 192 threads - also 2 per core (AMD). An IBM Power10 and Power11 core supports up to 8 threads (SMT8); a two-socket IBM Power S1124 with 60 active cores runs up to 480 threads simultaneously (IBM Redbook SG24-8590). The thread count alone does not translate linearly into performance - what decides is the throughput of the processor subsystems and how well the workload can be parallelized.
ARM, as the third significant player in the server space, combines energy efficiency with licensing flexibility. Unlike x86 and IBM Power, ARM operates on a licensing model in which different vendors (such as AWS with Graviton, Ampere Computing or Fujitsu) build their own implementations of the architecture. AWS states that Graviton-based instances use up to 60% less energy than comparable EC2 instances for the same performance, and that the latest Graviton5 has 192 cores. This is a cloud provider’s claim about its own instances, not a general property of the architecture.
Key differences between modern server architectures
- Microarchitecture convergence: modern x86 processors use a RISC-like internal structure
- Multithreading: Intel Xeon and AMD EPYC: 2 threads/core; IBM Power10 and Power11: up to 8 threads/core; ARM: depends on the implementation - e.g. Ampere AmpereOne has single-threaded cores (up to 192 per processor)
- Energy efficiency: there is no common, independent measure across architectures - compare on your own workload
- Memory bandwidth: AMD EPYC 9654 - 460.8 GB/s per socket (AMD); Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H - 8 channels of DDR5-4800 (Intel does not state bandwidth on the processor spec page); IBM Power S1124 - up to 1228 GB/s for the whole two-socket server (IBM)
📚 Read the complete guide: IAM / Zero Trust: Identity and Access Management (IAM): who, what, where, when and why
Why do Intel and AMD processors dominate x86 solutions?
The dominance of Intel and AMD processors in the x86 segment is due to a combination of historical, technological and ecosystem factors. Intel, as the creator of the x86 architecture, has shaped market standards for decades, investing huge resources in the development of chip manufacturing technologies. AMD, initially a licensee of Intel’s technology, evolved into a full-fledged competitor, introducing innovations such as the AMD64 64-bit architecture (later adopted by Intel as Intel 64).
A key advantage of the x86 ecosystem is unparalleled software compatibility. Virtually all popular operating systems (Windows, Linux, FreeBSD), business applications, development tools and server solutions are natively available for this architecture. By comparison, IBM Power supports AIX, IBM i and Linux, and server ARM is still developing full support for some enterprise applications. When using popular commercial software, choosing x86 often eliminates the need to recompile applications or use compatibility layers.
Intel and AMD develop different product lines, and the choice between them depends mainly on the workload profile. In the 2022-2023 generation, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H offered 60 cores and the AMD EPYC 9654 96 cores per socket. Both vendors already have newer generations: in the ThinkSystem SR650 V4, Lenovo uses Intel Xeon 6 processors with up to 86 cores per socket, and in the SR665 V3 AMD EPYC 9005 processors (Lenovo Press). For applications licensed per core, what matters is not only the core count but also single-core performance and the software vendor’s licensing factor.
Economy of scale is another important factor. Mass production of x86 processors reduces unit costs and accelerates the innovation cycle, and competition between Intel and AMD drives development and keeps prices in check, which benefits customers.
Interoperability and standardization of components are additional advantages of the x86 ecosystem. Technical standards such as PCIe, DDR5 and communication protocols allow systems to be composed of parts from different manufacturers. This flexibility allows organizations to optimize performance and costs by choosing the components that best fit their needs, and makes it easier to expand and upgrade systems without having to replace the entire infrastructure.
What advantages do IBM Power servers offer over x86 solutions?
IBM positions the Power family for critical workloads: its family page lists SAP HANA, Oracle and Red Hat, and AIX, IBM i and Linux run on a single PowerVM hypervisor. The current generation is Power11 - IBM announced it on 8 July 2025 and set general availability for 25 July 2025. The Power11 processor has up to 16 SMT8 cores, 2 MB of L2 cache per core and up to 128 MB of L3 cache per processor (Redbook SG24-8590). Whether these parameters give a per-core advantage in your application is decided by measurement: vendors do not publish a single “one Power core = N x86 cores” ratio, and one should not be borrowed from third-party tests.
The memory architecture is a strength of the platform for memory-intensive workloads. According to IBM, Power11 doubles the bandwidth of the OMI memory interface compared with Power10. Capacity grows with server class: the S1124 takes up to 8 TB of DDR5 memory, the E1150 up to 16 TB and the E1180 up to 64 TB. For comparison, Intel states a maximum of 4 TB of memory per processor for the Xeon Platinum 8490H. These are maximum values for whole systems or processors - before comparing platforms, check how much memory your database actually needs.
Security at the hardware level is an area where both x86 and IBM Power offer mature mechanisms, but they are named and built differently. Power11 servers encrypt memory transparently, without configuration (Transparent Memory Encryption), and support secure boot, quantum-safe cryptography and FIPS 140-3 certified cryptographic modules (IBM). In the Xeon Platinum 8490H, Intel offers Total Memory Encryption and SGX (Software Guard Extensions) for creating memory enclaves. In its Infinity Guard suite, AMD provides transparent memory encryption (TSME) and SEV (Secure Encrypted Virtualization), which encrypts the memory of each virtual machine with a separate key, protecting it from the hypervisor - an important layer of data protection.
IBM Power’s advantages come with tradeoffs. The software ecosystem for Power is narrower - many applications are not natively available for the platform or require adaptation. The availability of professionals with Power systems administration experience is lower than for x86, which can mean higher personnel costs and recruitment difficulties. The price of a server depends on its configuration and activated cores, so a cost comparison only makes sense on the basis of specific quotes.
If the decision to go with Power has already been made, the next question is the specific model. We describe how to narrow the choice in the Power11 generation by licensing, memory and installation site in our guide on how to choose an IBM Power server.
Comparison of selected server processors - vendor data
| Parameter | Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H | AMD EPYC 9654 | IBM Power11 (30-core module in the S1124) | Ampere AmpereOne A192-32X (ARM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Launch | Q1 2023 | 10 Nov 2022 | 25 Jul 2025 (Power11 GA) | 18 May 2023 (AmpereOne family announcement) |
| Cores | 60 | 96 | 30 per DCM module (+2 spare), up to 60 per server | 192 |
| Threads per core | 2 | 2 | 8 | 1 (single-threaded cores) |
| Frequency | 1.9 GHz base, up to 3.5 GHz turbo | 2.4 GHz base, up to 3.7 GHz boost | typically 2.8-3.95 GHz | 3.2 GHz (Ampere states a single, consistent frequency) |
| Cache | 112.5 MB | 384 MB L3 | up to 128 MB L3 per processor | 2 MB L2 per core + 64 MB System Level Cache |
| Power | 350 W TDP | 360 W default TDP | IBM states the draw of the whole S1124 server: max. 2750 W | TDP not stated by the vendor; Ampere states “Usage Power” of 283 W - estimated average draw in the SPECrate2017_int_base test |
| Memory | up to 4 TB, 8 channels of DDR5-4800 | 12 channels of DDR5-4800 | up to 8 TB DDR5 per S1124 server | up to 4 TB, 8 channels of DDR5 up to 5200 |
| Memory bandwidth | not stated on the processor spec page | 460.8 GB/s per socket | up to 1228 GB/s per S1124 server | not stated by the vendor |
Note: vendors state parameters for different units (processor, socket, whole server), so the rows should not be compared directly. Ampere does not publish TDP or memory bandwidth for AmpereOne, and “Usage Power” is, according to Ampere, an estimated average draw in a benchmark, not TDP - do not set it against Intel’s and AMD’s TDP. “Not stated by the vendor” means the vendor does not publish that parameter. Newer x86 generations (Intel Xeon 6, AMD EPYC 9005) have different parameters - check the spec page of the specific processor.
How does virtualization improve the efficiency of x86-based infrastructure?
Virtualization has changed the way x86 infrastructure is used, enabling the consolidation of multiple physical servers on a single hardware platform. Today’s virtualization technologies - Microsoft Hyper-V, KVM or Xen - use hardware virtualization support (Intel VT-x, AMD-V), which keeps virtualization overhead low for typical workloads.
Today’s x86 virtualization platforms offer extensive resource management features. Similar functionality is offered by Microsoft System Center VMM and open platforms like OpenStack. x86 hypervisors allocate processor capacity to virtual machines as virtual cores, with shares, reservations and limits. According to IBM, PowerVM on IBM Power allows resources to be allocated to partitions starting from as little as 0.01 of a core and 1 GB of memory - a difference in approach worth taking into account when planning density.
x86 virtualization has evolved well beyond basic resource consolidation. Technologies such as Microsoft SDN (Software-Defined Networking) enable advanced network virtualization, creating software overlays above the physical infrastructure. Software-Defined Storage (SDS) solutions like Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct and Ceph allow the creation of flexible, distributed storage systems using standard disks in x86 servers. These functionalities enable the implementation of full Software-Defined Infrastructure (SDI) on standard x86 hardware.
However, it is important to note the limitations of x86 virtualization in the context of highly demanding workloads. In scenarios requiring very high I/O throughput, extremely low latency or maximum computing performance, virtualization introduces an overhead that has to be measured on your own workload by comparing a virtualized installation with bare metal. In such cases, the x86 infrastructure may require additional optimizations, such as SR-IOV (Single Root I/O Virtualization) for networking or dedicated GPU cards with vGPU technology for compute workloads. Alternatively, for the most critical workloads, organizations can consider platforms optimized for specific use cases, such as IBM Power for database workloads or servers with GPU accelerators for AI/ML workloads.
How does IBM Power’s RISC architecture affect computing performance?
Today’s IBM Power processors, although derived from the RISC tradition, are an elaborate architecture with many specialized units. IBM compares the generations in Redbook SG24-8590: Power10 and Power11 are built on a 7 nm process; Power10 has up to 15 cores and 120 MB of L3 cache, Power11 up to 16 cores and 128 MB of L3. Both have 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 8 threads per core. For comparison, a single Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H processor has 60 cores and an AMD EPYC 9654 has 96. The difference therefore lies in the organization of the processor: fewer cores, but more threads and more cache per core.
IBM does not publish comparisons of Power11 with x86 processors in SPEC CPU benchmarks, and SAP Standard Application Benchmark results depend on the whole server configuration, not the processor alone. So instead of ratios from industry articles, it is better to rely on what IBM states directly: Power11 doubles OMI memory bandwidth compared with Power10, and workloads with irregular memory access - typical of databases - benefit from large caches and a wide memory interface.
The IBM Power architecture also offers specialized hardware accelerators integrated into the processor that improve performance for specific workloads:
- Matrix Math Accelerator (MMA) - units in every core dedicated to matrix operations that accelerate AI inferencing and machine learning close to the data; IBM states four times more matrix SIMD per core than in Power9
- Cryptographic acceleration - Power11 accelerates AES, SHA-2 and SHA-3 in hardware; IBM states four times more cryptographic engines per core than in Power9, which allows, among other things, AIX volume encryption with minimal impact on performance
- Active Memory Expansion - compression of AIX partition memory that increases its effective capacity at the cost of processor cycles; the degree of expansion depends on how compressible the data is
- IBM Spyre Accelerator - an off-chip AI accelerator for Power11, intended for scaling mission-critical AI workloads
These hardware accelerators provide an advantage for specific workloads, but using them effectively requires software support. Applications that do not use these features do not benefit from them.
x86 processors are also evolving towards specialized accelerators. Intel introduced Advanced Matrix Extensions (AMX) in 4th generation Xeon processors - the Xeon Platinum 8490H has AMX and AVX-512 instructions - to accelerate AI computing. The difference between platforms lies mainly in the ecosystem: which libraries and frameworks can use a given accelerator.
What to look for when choosing between multicore and single-threaded performance?
The choice between a high number of cores and high single-thread performance is a key architectural decision whose implications go far beyond a simple calculation of total computing power. Amdahl’s law defines the fundamental limitation of parallel scaling - if only 95% of an application can be parallelized, the maximum theoretical performance gain is limited to 20x, regardless of the number of cores added. In practice, many business applications contain significant sequential code, which makes single-thread performance a critical parameter.
Modern databases have different scaling characteristics. PostgreSQL, due to its multi-process architecture, uses many cores for parallel queries, but synchronization between processes can become a bottleneck with a very large number of cores. Oracle Database scales both vertically and horizontally, and with per-core licensing the core factor is key. In Oracle’s official table (Processor Core Factor Table, updated 28 January 2026), IBM POWER8, POWER9 and POWER10 processors have a factor of 1.0, while Intel Xeon and AMD EPYC processors have 0.5. Power11 is not listed by name, so its factor has to be confirmed with Oracle.
The factor changes a calculation that often appears in comparisons. A server with 16 POWER10 cores requires 16 Oracle processor licences, and an x86 server with 32 cores also requires 16. The Power platform therefore saves on Oracle licences only if, in your workload, one of its cores does the work of more than two x86 cores. This cannot be assumed - it has to be measured. IBM i is licensed differently: according to IBM, it depends on the server’s processor tier (e.g. P05, P20, P30), not on a core factor.
The workload profile also needs to be considered. Applications that make good use of the processor cache (cache-friendly), such as most web services and microservices, usually scale better horizontally and use architectures with more cores more efficiently. Applications with irregular memory access patterns, such as graph analytics or some ML algorithms, often perform better on processors with larger caches and higher single-thread performance.
Instead of ratios from other people’s tests, measure on your own workload:
- transaction throughput per licensed core, after applying the software vendor’s factor
- response time at peak load, not only on average
- memory usage and I/O throughput, which often limit the system before the processor does
How do virtualization technologies work with different processor architectures?
Virtualization technologies have evolved in parallel with processor architectures, creating ecosystems tailored to the specifics of each platform. On the x86 platform, VMware vSphere is popular in the enterprise segment, with features such as DRS (Distributed Resource Scheduler), Storage vMotion and NSX (network virtualization). Microsoft Hyper-V provides deep integration with the Windows ecosystem, while KVM and Xen form the foundation of many open source and commercial solutions, including cloud platforms. x86 hypervisors have developed extensive high availability, performance and security options.
PowerVM, the native hypervisor of IBM Power, comes with the S1124 in its Enterprise Edition (IBM). It allows resources to be allocated to partitions from 0.01 of a core, which makes efficient use of the server easier in environments with many small partitions. The platform also has memory features: Active Memory Mirroring duplicates the hypervisor’s critical memory so that it survives a memory failure, and Active Memory Expansion compresses AIX partition memory. The server is managed by a built-in eBMC controller, and the partition environment by the HMC console.
In the context of ARM virtualization, the situation is more complex. AWS Nitro for Graviton instances uses the cloud provider’s proprietary architecture. KVM on ARM has matured considerably, and virtualization on ARMv8 and later generations uses the processor’s virtualization extensions. The maturity of specific features, such as live migration, is worth checking for the chosen distribution and hardware.
When comparing virtualization overhead and consolidation density across platforms, rely on your own tests or on the documentation of specific configurations. The results depend on the hypervisor, the workload type and the hardware, so general ratios such as “platform A fits X% more machines than platform B” do not carry over between environments.
An important aspect of the evolution of virtualization is the trend towards abstracting the hypervisor technology itself. Containers (Docker, Kubernetes), abstracting the operating system level rather than the hardware, offer lightweight virtualization that works on all the architectures discussed. OpenShift runs on x86, IBM Power and ARM - IBM lists Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform among the operating environments for Power11 servers - and provides a consistent container environment regardless of the underlying architecture, enabling a multi-architecture strategy without significant application changes.
Why do IBM Power servers perform better in high-availability environments?
IBM Power servers offer extensive high availability features, but they are worth comparing objectively with the solutions available for x86 platforms. In Power11 scale-out servers, IBM uses redundant hot-swap fans and power supplies, optional mirroring of hypervisor memory (Active Memory Mirroring) and spare cores: each dual-chip module has two cores reserved exclusively for replacing a failing core on the same module. According to IBM, predictive core failures in Power11 do not require downtime to repair the processor module (Redbook SG24-8590).
IBM states 99.9999% availability for Power11, but a footnote in IBM’s announcement of 8 July 2025 narrows this figure: it refers to unplanned downtime of a single Power E1180 system as calculated in IBM’s RAS analysis. It is therefore not a guarantee for the whole family or for the smaller models. Vendors do not publish mean time between failures (MTBF) or availability of x86 servers in a comparable methodology, which is why we do not set such figures side by side here.
Live Partition Mobility (LPM) allows running logical partitions to be migrated between physical servers without interrupting applications. Similar functionality is offered by vMotion in VMware and Live Migration in Hyper-V. IBM combines LPM with automated updates and live kernel and library updates in an approach it calls zero planned downtime - although some service actions require moving partitions to another server. Migration time depends on the size and activity of the partition’s memory and on the network, so it is worth measuring in your own environment.
x86 platforms offer clustering solutions comparable to PowerHA. Windows Server Failover Clustering and Linux Pacemaker provide automatic failure detection and failover between cluster nodes. The choice depends mainly on the operating systems and applications the cluster is meant to protect.
x86 servers have their own management controllers (HPE iLO, Dell iDRAC, Lenovo XClarity Controller) and RAS mechanisms that depend on the model and generation. The extent of automatic isolation of faulty components varies between vendors, so when comparing platforms it is worth checking the RAS specification of the specific models rather than general claims.
How do you compare the costs of maintaining x86 and IBM Power infrastructure over a 5-year horizon?
A reliable TCO analysis must include all relevant cost components and calculate them on the basis of specific quotes. Hardware and licence prices change with configuration, volume and contract, so instead of sample amounts we give the structure of the comparison - what to check on each side.
| Cost component | What to check on the IBM Power side | What to check on the x86 side |
|---|---|---|
| Hardware and activations | cores active at purchase (in the S1124 at least 50% of those installed) and the cost of later Capacity on Demand activations | number and model of processors, memory, disks - cost of expansion during the server’s life |
| Hypervisor | PowerVM (Enterprise Edition included with the S1124) | licence and subscription of the chosen hypervisor |
| Operating systems | AIX subscriptions or IBM i tier; Linux by distribution | Windows Server or a Linux distribution |
| Database licences | the vendor’s core factor (Oracle: POWER8-POWER10 = 1.0) | core factor (Oracle: Intel Xeon, AMD EPYC = 0.5) |
| Power and cooling | maximum draw from documentation (S1124: 2750 W) and the actual load profile | draw from the server spec sheet and the actual load profile |
| Maintenance and support | IBM and partner service level over the analysis period | the vendor’s service level over the analysis period |
| Skills | availability of AIX / IBM i administrators | availability of x86 administrators |
A sensitivity analysis identifies which assumptions change the result the most. It is worth recalculating TCO in at least three variants:
- with the database on a commercial licence and on an open source solution
- at the current load and at the growth assumed in the business plan
- at current and higher energy prices
Non-financial aspects of TCO, often overlooked in analyses, can have a significant impact on actual costs:
- Risk of business downtime: the platform’s RAS mechanisms can limit the effects of hardware failures
- Business flexibility: the ability to scale quickly in response to changing workloads can translate into measurable benefits
- Readiness for future requirements: the platform’s ability to handle new workloads (e.g. AI/ML) without a major infrastructure overhaul
In cloud environments there is a third option - ARM instances such as AWS Graviton. AWS claims the best price performance in its offering for them, but comparing them with a server in your own server room requires a different cost model (pay-per-use instead of purchase).
In what business scenarios can choosing RISC be a strategic advantage?
Modern RISC implementations, such as IBM Power and ARM, offer advantages in certain business scenarios that should be considered in the context of an organization’s specific needs.
-
Intensive transaction processing (OLTP)
- Banking and finance: transactional systems on IBM i or AIX, for which IBM designs business continuity mechanisms - live updates, partition migration and spare cores
- ERP systems: IBM lists SAP HANA and Oracle among the main workloads of the Power family
-
Analytics and Big Data platforms
- In-memory databases that need a large amount of memory in one system: the E1150 takes up to 16 TB and the E1180 up to 64 TB of DDR5 memory
- Analytics with irregular memory access that benefits from large caches and OMI bandwidth
-
Business-critical solutions
- Consolidating many critical systems in partitions of a single server, with AIX, IBM i and Linux side by side
- Environments that need ransomware detection and recovery from immutable copies - IBM offers Power Cyber Vault for this
For ARM platforms, strategic applications include:
- Cost-optimized cloud infrastructure
- Web servers and APIs on Graviton instances, for which AWS claims the best price performance in its offering
- High-volume microservices with predictable traffic patterns
- Edge computing
- IoT data processing closer to the source, where power draw matters
- Intelligent monitoring and image analysis systems, where performance per watt is a key factor
- HPC (High Performance Computing) for specific workloads
- Scientific simulations on ARM processors designed for HPC, such as Fujitsu A64FX
- Computing where performance per watt at a high core count matters
For most standard IT workloads, especially in smaller organizations, x86 platforms still offer the optimal balance between performance, cost and ease of deployment. The advantage of RISC architectures shows mainly in specialized workloads with high requirements or at a scale where even small performance differences translate into significant savings.
How does hardware security differentiate x86 and IBM Power architectures?
Modern processor architectures implement advanced hardware-level security mechanisms, but with different priorities and names. The table below sets out the features described in vendor documentation:
| Security feature | IBM Power11 | Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H | AMD EPYC 9004 | ARM (Armv9-A) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Memory encryption | Transparent Memory Encryption, no configuration | Total Memory Encryption | Transparent Secure Memory Encryption (TSME) | depends on the implementation |
| Workload and confidential data isolation | PowerVM logical partitions | SGX - application memory enclaves | SEV with Secure Nested Paging - a separate key for each virtual machine | Realm Management Extension (RME) - “Realms” within the Confidential Compute Architecture |
| Secure boot | Secure Boot, quantum-safe cryptography | Intel Boot Guard | AMD Secure Boot | depends on the implementation |
| Cryptographic acceleration | AES, SHA-2, SHA-3 in the core | AES New Instructions, Intel Crypto Acceleration | not described on the Infinity Guard page | depends on the implementation |
| Certification | support for FIPS 140-3 modules | per module and platform | FIPS for EPYC 9654: “In Review” (AMD) | depends on the implementation |
The IBM Power architecture bases environment isolation on PowerVM logical partitions and on security built into the processor: transparent memory encryption, secure boot and accelerated cryptography. With Power11, IBM added quantum-safe cryptography and an inventory of cryptographic assets.
Intel and AMD approach virtual machine isolation differently:
- Intel SGX creates protected memory enclaves for parts of an application
- AMD SEV encrypts the memory of each virtual machine with a separate key and protects it from the hypervisor and other virtual machines; in the EPYC 9004, AMD adds Secure Nested Paging
No platform is immune to all side-channel and speculative execution attacks. For every architecture, vendors publish security bulletins and microcode or firmware updates - deploying them on time matters more than comparing platforms on the basis of claims.
ARM processors (used in AWS Graviton or Ampere) implement their own security mechanisms. In the Armv9-A architecture, the Realm Management Extension creates “Realms” - trusted execution environments that isolate data and models from the rest of the system.
For organizations subject to strict compliance requirements (such as banks or public institutions), differences in security implementation matter during audits. IBM indicates support for FIPS 140-3 certified cryptographic modules for Power11 servers - with every platform it is worth checking the certification status of the specific module, not of the whole processor family.
How to effectively manage heterogeneous environments with x86 and RISC?
Modern organizations often maintain heterogeneous IT environments, using different processor architectures to handle diverse workloads. Managing such an ecosystem effectively requires a strategic approach that starts with precisely matching workloads to the right platforms. Applications with high performance requirements, critical databases and transaction processing systems can be directed to the IBM Power platform, while standard web services, development environments or applications with lower performance requirements can be handled by x86 infrastructure. Such workload segmentation makes it possible to use the strengths of each architecture while optimizing the total cost of ownership of the IT infrastructure.
Standardization of management and monitoring tools is key to running a heterogeneous environment efficiently. Monitoring platforms such as Zabbix, Nagios or Prometheus can integrate data from different systems, providing a complete picture of the state of the infrastructure. This unification of tools simplifies day-to-day management, reduces the need for platform-specific skills and allows problems to be detected and resolved faster, regardless of the architecture on which they occur.
Containerization and orchestration technologies, such as Docker and Kubernetes, play a key role in creating a consistent application environment across architectural differences. These platforms make it possible to package applications together with their dependencies into portable units that can run on different operating systems and hardware architectures. Red Hat OpenShift, running on both x86 and IBM Power, makes it possible to build a uniform container environment that spans both architectures. This abstraction of the infrastructure simplifies deploying applications, managing their lifecycle and scaling, regardless of the underlying hardware architecture.
Managing software licences in a heterogeneous environment requires particular attention, as it can significantly affect the total cost of ownership. Many commercial business applications, especially databases and ERP systems, use licensing models based on the number of processor cores - often with different factors for different architectures. For example, in Oracle’s table an IBM POWER core counts as 1.0 licence and an Intel Xeon or AMD EPYC core as 0.5. Workload placement across platforms should therefore be planned after calculating licences for each of them, while applications licensed per end user or per instance can be placed more freely.
Key aspects of managing a heterogeneous environment
- Workload segmentation: matching applications to the hardware platform
- Unified management: standardizing monitoring and administration tools across architectural differences
- Containerization: using container technologies to abstract the infrastructure
- Licence optimization: placing workloads after calculating licences, taking core factors into account
The future of x86 and RISC architecture in the era of digital transformation
The development of computing technologies and evolving business requirements are constantly shaping the IT infrastructure landscape. The x86 architecture is evolving, introducing RISC-like solutions - internal micro-operations, out-of-order execution and register renaming. At the same time, IBM Power and ARM are introducing specialized accelerators and vector units. The pace of change shows in the launches: IBM Power11 became available in July 2025, Intel Xeon 6 is already in Lenovo ThinkSystem V4 servers, and AWS has announced Graviton5 with 192 cores.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning are becoming key workloads, driving innovation in processor architectures. All the major platforms are investing in AI solutions:
- Intel: Advanced Matrix Extensions (AMX) in 4th generation Xeon processors
- IBM: Matrix Math Accelerator in every Power11 core for inferencing close to the data, and the off-chip IBM Spyre Accelerator
- ARM: Realms in Armv9-A, which according to Arm isolate AI models and data
- AWS: Graviton5, positioned by AWS for agentic AI workloads
The heterogeneous model and hardware specialization are becoming the dominant trend. Instead of choosing a single architecture, organizations increasingly implement a “best tool for the job” model:
- Critical databases and IBM i systems on IBM Power (RAS mechanisms, consolidation in partitions)
- Standard enterprise applications on x86 (broad availability of software and skills)
- AI/ML workloads on specialized accelerators (GPU, TPU and similar)
- Edge and energy-efficient applications on ARM
Cloud technologies and containerization further drive this trend, providing a consistent operating environment regardless of architecture. AWS states that more than 120,000 customers use Graviton processors, which shows how far alternative architectures have entered the mainstream. Closer integration of hybrid clouds with on-premise data centers will continue to blur the lines between architectures.
Key findings - how to choose the optimal architecture for your organization?
The choice between x86, IBM Power and ARM architectures should be based on a multidimensional analysis of your organization’s specific requirements and priorities. Below is a structured approach to making this decision:
-
Analysis of application performance characteristics
- Workloads with a large share of sequential code: single-thread performance matters - measure it on your own application
- Applications licensed per core: calculate licences taking the core factor into account (Oracle: POWER = 1.0, Intel Xeon and AMD EPYC = 0.5)
- Highly parallel applications (web, stateless): core count and horizontal scaling on x86 or ARM
- Memory-intensive applications (SAP HANA, analytics): check the memory capacity of a single system - IBM E1180 up to 64 TB, E1150 up to 16 TB, S1124 up to 8 TB; on x86 it depends on the number of sockets and the server model
-
TCO calculation with all relevant components
- Hardware and core activations, hypervisor, operating systems, application licences, energy, support and team skills - based on specific quotes, not sample amounts
-
Assessment of the software ecosystem and dependencies
- x86: the broadest compatibility (Windows, Linux, FreeBSD), especially for commercial and legacy applications
- IBM Power: AIX, IBM i and Linux (including Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server)
- ARM: growing Linux support, narrower for enterprise applications
- For Java, Python and Node.js applications, all platforms offer good support
-
Prioritizing security and reliability requirements
- Reliability: compare the RAS mechanisms of specific models (spare cores, redundant power and cooling, live updates), not general availability claims
- Security: check memory encryption, virtual machine isolation and the certification status of specific modules
-
Long-term strategy analysis
- Lifecycle: IBM states a roadmap and support plan for AIX beyond 2035; for x86 and ARM, check the server vendor’s support policy
- Future workloads (AI/ML, analytics, edge): all platforms are investing in AI accelerators, but with different approaches
The decision-making process should be supplemented by a proof-of-concept and benchmarks for the organization’s key applications. Comparing performance, TCO and compatibility on real production workloads will provide the most reliable data for the decision.
Recommendations for different types of organizations
- Large enterprises with critical business applications: A hybrid solution - IBM Power for critical databases and transactional applications, x86 for standard workloads
- Cost-oriented organizations with standard applications: x86 as the foundation, considering ARM in the cloud for stateless workloads
- Technology companies with advanced AI/ML workloads: A heterogeneous model with x86+GPU for training, with potential use of IBM Power or ARM for inferencing
- Small and medium-sized businesses: x86 as the most versatile solution, with reasonable costs and availability of skills
Summary - the place of x86 and RISC architectures in the modern data center
A modern data center rarely relies on a single processor architecture - organizations increasingly implement heterogeneous strategies that use the strengths of different platforms. The x86 architecture (Intel Xeon, AMD EPYC) remains the foundation of most data centers thanks to its versatility, rich software ecosystem and availability of specialists, and competition between Intel and AMD drives innovation and keeps prices in check.
IBM Power holds the position of a platform for critical business workloads, where reliability, large memory in a single system and consolidation of AIX, IBM i and Linux on one server matter. Whether this translates into a lower total cost of ownership depends on licensing (the core factor can be higher on Power than on x86), the team’s skills and the results of measurement on your own workload. A higher entry threshold and lower availability of specialists are significant barriers to adoption, especially for smaller organizations.
ARM, represented by solutions such as AWS Graviton, Ampere or Fujitsu A64FX, is rapidly gaining importance, especially in the cloud and in edge computing. AWS claims up to 60% lower energy use for Graviton instances than for comparable EC2 instances at the same performance. The availability of some commercial applications and enterprise tools remains a limitation.
Based on current trends, the future probably belongs to heterogeneous infrastructure, where different architectures coexist within a consistent operating environment. Technologies such as containers (Docker, Kubernetes, OpenShift) and multi-cloud orchestration create an abstraction over hardware differences, allowing organizations to choose the optimal platform for each type of workload. At the same time, all the major architectures are evolving towards greater specialization, integrating dedicated accelerators for workloads such as AI/ML, data analytics and cryptography, which further blurs the traditional boundaries between processor categories.
Ultimately, success in the modern data center depends not so much on choosing a single “best” architecture, but on the ability to strategically align technology with specific business needs and effectively manage a heterogeneous environment. Organizations that can objectively assess the advantages and limitations of each platform in the context of their requirements will build IT infrastructures that effectively support business goals at an optimal performance-to-cost ratio.
The place of architectures in the modern data center
- Specialization and acceleration: all architectures are moving towards dedicated solutions for AI/ML and advanced analytics
- Hybrid approach: leveraging the advantages of different architectures depending on the specific workloads
- x86 as the foundation: standard workloads, development environments and containerized applications
- IBM Power for critical applications: transactions, databases and consolidation of IBM i and AIX systems
- ARM for cost efficiency: growing importance in cloud and edge computing
Sources of technical data (as of September 2026): IBM Redbook SG24-8590 (Power11 scale-out, Power11/Power10/Power9 comparison), IBM Power, IBM’s Power11 announcement (with footnotes), Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H, AMD EPYC 9654, AMD Infinity Guard, Arm CCA, AWS Graviton, Ampere AmpereOne product brief and Ampere’s announcement of 18 May 2023, Oracle Processor Core Factor Table, Lenovo Press LP2127 and LP1608, Lenovo portfolio LP1553.
Related Terms
Learn key terms related to this article in our cybersecurity glossary:
- CSPM (Cloud Security Posture Management) — CSPM (Cloud Security Posture Management) is a category of cloud security tools…
- Network Security — Network security is a set of practices, technologies, and strategies aimed at…
- Cloud Environment Security — Cloud environment security refers to the technologies, procedures, policies,…
- Cybersecurity — Cybersecurity is a collection of techniques, processes, and practices used to…
- Cybersecurity Incident Management — Cybersecurity incident management is the process of identifying, analyzing,…
Learn More
Explore related articles in our knowledge base:
- Cloud or on-premise servers? A guide to choosing the right solution
- How does cloud backup work? A comprehensive guide for businesses
- ICT Cybersecurity: Comprehensive Guide for Organizations
- Personal Data Leak - Comprehensive Action Guide
- TCP - A Comprehensive Guide to the Transmission Control Protocol: From the Basics to Advanced Mechanisms of Operation
Explore Our Services
Need cybersecurity support? Check out:
- Server Infrastructure - server deployment and optimization
- Managed Services - comprehensive IT management
Explore Our Products
Solutions mentioned in this article that can help protect your organization:
- IBM Power — IBM
- Red Hat OpenShift — Red Hat
- Dell PowerEdge — Dell Technologies
Frequently asked questions
What is the key difference between x86 and RISC server architectures?
x86 architecture, used by Intel and AMD processors, comes from a complex instruction set (CISC) design; RISC architectures such as IBM Power and ARM come from a reduced instruction set. Modern x86 processors translate instructions into simpler micro-operations, so at the execution level the line has blurred. In practice the differences lie elsewhere - threads per core (2 in Intel Xeon and AMD EPYC, up to 8 in IBM Power10 and Power11), supported operating systems (x86 runs Windows and Linux; Power runs AIX, IBM i and Linux) and the software licensing model.
When should an organization choose IBM Power servers over x86 servers?
IBM positions the Power family for workloads such as SAP HANA, Oracle and Red Hat, and Power is the natural platform for organizations already running IBM i or AIX. Power11 adds spare cores that take over from a failing core, live updates and partition migration without stopping the system. A per-core advantage should not be assumed, however - in Oracle's core factor table an IBM POWER core counts as 1.0 licence and an Intel Xeon or AMD EPYC core as 0.5, so cost-effectiveness has to be measured on your own workload.
How does server virtualization affect security and infrastructure management?
Virtualization improves security by enabling workload isolation between virtual machines, simplifying backup and disaster recovery through VM snapshots, enabling rapid deployment of security patches by cloning known-good VM states, and reducing the physical attack surface by consolidating servers. However, the hypervisor layer itself becomes a critical security boundary that must be carefully hardened and monitored.
What are the main considerations when choosing between physical and virtual server infrastructure?
Key considerations include workload performance requirements (some latency-sensitive or high-I/O workloads benefit from dedicated physical resources), licensing costs for software that is priced per physical or virtual core, management complexity, disaster recovery objectives, compliance requirements mandating hardware isolation, and the total cost of ownership including power, cooling, and space for physical infrastructure compared to the efficiency gains of virtualization.
