What Drives China’s Domestic CPU Market? A Deep Dive into 2024‑2026 Trends

Background

In 2023, China’s Xinchuang (information‑technology‑innovation) hardware industry entered a new development cycle, with the market projected to reach 7,889.5 billion yuan by 2026. Downstream users are increasingly focusing on CPU performance, ecosystem compatibility, migration cost, and supply‑chain robustness rather than merely purchasing generic OA or peripheral devices.

CPU Instruction‑Set Landscape

CPU architectures are classified into Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) and Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC). CISC, exemplified by the x86 architecture, offers rich instruction types, strong performance for desktops and servers, and a mature hardware‑software ecosystem. RISC, represented by ARM, MIPS, ALPHA, and RISC‑V, emphasizes low power consumption and is prevalent in mobile terminals and specialized devices.

Market Share and Licensing

Globally, x86 dominates the PC and server markets; in China’s server market it holds over 96 % share. ARM leads the mobile sector with its low‑power, high‑integration characteristics. x86 licensing follows a cross‑patent agreement between AMD and Intel, avoiding IP disputes for new instruction‑set extensions. ARM licenses specific versions (e.g., ARM v8, ARM v9) and restricts third‑party modifications, limiting the ability to extend or adapt newer versions without additional agreements.

Domestic CPU Companies

Six major Chinese CPU vendors have emerged:

HaiGuang and Zhaoxin adopt x86, obtaining cross‑patent and instruction‑set licensing that allows them to design their own cores and develop the proprietary C86 instruction set.

Loongson and ShenWei (SW_64) have created independent instruction sets (LoongArch and SW_64), providing full autonomy but facing ecosystem scarcity.

FeiTeng and Huawei Kunpeng use ARM v8; they can customize the architecture but cannot employ ARM v9, which constrains future feature expansion.

Analysis of Advantages and Risks

Vendors based on x86 or ARM benefit from mature software ecosystems; x86‑based companies (HaiGuang, Zhaoxin) enjoy strong market recognition and extensive compatibility, while ARM‑based firms (Kunpeng, FeiTeng) have advantages in mobile and embedded domains but encounter licensing restrictions that may hinder product iteration. Self‑developed instruction sets grant full control and security but suffer from limited software support and higher integration costs.

Conclusion

The Chinese Xinchuang hardware market currently favors x86 and ARM architectures for immediate competitiveness, while continued development of indigenous instruction sets remains crucial for long‑term sovereignty and security. Ongoing investment in ecosystem building, licensing negotiations, and autonomous design will shape the future trajectory of China’s domestic CPU industry.