It’s time to take an in-depth look at the differences between the two current reference machines in IoT, in this ESP8266 vs ESP32 comparison.
In previous posts, we have introduced both the ESP8266 and the ESP32, two WiFi-enabled SoCs from the Chinese manufacturer Espressif, which are causing a sensation in the Maker community.
It’s time to put these two SoCs face to face, head to head, in this ESP8266 vs ESP32 comparison where we will see in a table the differences and similarities of these two SoCs point by point.
Logically, the ESP32 is going to win by a landslide on almost all points as it is the successor to the ESP8266. However, we will also see in the comparison that the ESP8266 is a very interesting machine, especially when combined with its lower price.
Without further ado, here is the comparison table.
{ “models”: [ { “name”: “ESP8266”, “color”: “#f43f5e” }, { “name”: “ESP32”, “color”: “#10b981” } ], “categories”: { “Processor”: [“Processor”, “Nº bits”, “Nº cores”, “Speed”], “Memory”: [“SRAM”, “SPI FLASH”], “Power”: [“Power Supply”, “Temperature Range”], “Consumption”: [“Current Consumption”, “Deep Sleep Consumption”, “Low Power Consumption”], “Connectivity”: [“Wifi”, “Soft-AP”, “Hardware Encryption”, “Bluetooth”, “Ethernet MAC Interface”], “Peripherals”: [“GPIO (usable)”, “Hardware / Software PWM”, “ADC”, “ADC with Preamplifier”, “DAC”, “UART”, “I2C”, “SPI”, “I2S”, “1-Wire”, “CAN BUS”, “Touch Sensor”, “Temperature Sensor”, “HALL Sensor”, “IR”, “Timers”, “Random Number Gen.”, “Flash Encryption”, “Secure Boot”] }, “specs”: { “Processor”: [“Tensilica LX106”, “Tensilica Xtensa X36”], “Nº bits”: [“32 bits”, ""], “Nº cores”: [“Single core”, “Dual core”], “Speed”: [“80Mhz (up to 160 Mhz)”, “160 MHz (up to 240 MHz)”], “SRAM”: [“160 kB”, “512 kB”], “SPI FLASH”: [“Up to 16MiB”, ""], “Power Supply”: [“3.0 to 3.6V”, “2.2 to 3.6V”], “Temperature Range”: [“-40ºC to 125ºC”, ""], “Current Consumption”: [“80 mA (average), 225 mA (max)”, ""], “Deep Sleep Consumption”: [“20 uA (RTC + RTC memory)”, “2.5 uA (10 uA RTC + RTC memory)”], “Low Power Consumption”: [”❌”, “Less than 150 uA”], “Wifi”: [“802.11 b/g/n (up to +20 dBm) WEP, WPA”, ""], “Soft-AP”: [“✔️”, ""], “Hardware Encryption”: [”❌ (TLS 1.2 via software)”, “Yes”], “Bluetooth”: [”❌”, “v4.2 BR/EDR + BLE”], “Ethernet MAC Interface”: [”❌”, “10/100 Mbps”], “GPIO (usable)”: [“17”, “36”], “Hardware / Software PWM”: [”❌ / 8”, “1 / 16”], “ADC”: [“1 (10 bits)”, “18 (12 bits)”], “ADC with Preamplifier”: [”❌”, “Yes (low noise 60 dB)”], “DAC”: [”❌”, “2 (8 bits)”], “UART”: [“2 (in one only TX pin can be used)”, “4”], “I2C”: [“1”, “2”], “SPI”: [“2”, “4”], “I2S”: [“1”, “2”], “1-Wire”: [“Software implemented”, ""], “CAN BUS”: [”❌”, “1 x 2.0”], “Touch Sensor”: [”❌”, “10”], “Temperature Sensor”: [”❌”, “✔️”], “HALL Sensor”: [”❌”, “✔️”], “IR”: [“✔️”, ""], “Timers”: [“3”, “4 (64 bits)”], “Random Number Gen.”: [”❌”, “✔️”], “Flash Encryption”: [”❌”, “✔️”], “Secure Boot”: [”❌”, “✔️”] } }
First of all, the ESP32 has a more powerful dual-core processor. The next obvious advantage is that it incorporates Bluetooth BLE, in addition to WiFi.
Furthermore, the ESP32 incorporates more memory, flash encryption, secure boot, hardware encryption (something that was sorely missed in the ESP8266), a random number generator, and a real-time clock (RTC).
In terms of I/O, the ESP32 far surpasses the ESP8266, with 36 GPIOs (versus 17), 10 pins with Touch detection, 1+16 PWM (versus 0+8), 18 12-bit ADCs with preamplification (versus 1 10-bit), and includes 2 8-bit DACs.
In communication buses, the ESP32 again prevails, with 4 UARTs (versus 2, one with only TX), 2 I2Cs (versus 1), 4 SPIs (versus 2), 2 I2Ss (versus 1), and incorporates CAN BUS 2.0.
Additionally, the ESP32 has 4 64-bit timers (versus 3) and includes a Hall sensor, temperature sensor, and the possibility of 10/100Mbps Ethernet.
In terms of similarities, both SoCs can handle the same amount of memory up to 16MiB, and have 802.11 b/g/n WiFi connectivity.
As we had anticipated, it is clear that the ESP32 is a true powerhouse. However, the ESP8266 is still a very interesting SoC and has a lower price. But the ESP32 has set the bar very high.
It must also be said that currently there are few development boards that allow access to all the functions (all the pins) of the ESP32, so the differences between the two are diluted. In many cases, it boils down to greater computing capacity, Bluetooth, and hardware encryption acceleration.
In upcoming posts, we will see how to program both SoCs and we will start with tutorials on both the ESP8266 and the ESP32.
