Choosing the Right Computer-on-Module Standard for Industrial Automation Equipment

Industrial automation requires a wide range of advanced electronic systems, from machine control and data analysis platforms to robotic assembly lines, visual inspection systems, human-machine interfaces (HMIs), and more. Within these systems, sophisticated edge computing is essential for interfacing with a diverse set of peripherals and processing data with minimal latency to ensure equipment remains safe and maximally efficient.

In addition, these systems must operate reliably in punishing industrial environments, since any downtime erodes revenue generation opportunities for manufacturers. To maximize uptime, modular equipment architectures offer faster servicing through easy-to-replace components. With the right planning, modularity also facilitates upgrades that can extend equipment lifecycles to further maximize revenue.

This blog offers an introduction to open computer-on-module (COM) standards as an approach to enabling upgradable onboard processing. It will then provide guidance on selection criteria for industrial automation equipment and illustrate the long-term implications of COM standard choice by comparing two different COMs that use the same processor.

The advantages of COMs in industrial automation

COM-based design takes the core computing resources of a system and places them all on a single module that can be easily removed and replaced. This dramatically simplifies repairs—and therefore minimizes downtime—when compared to monolithic systems where processors are soldered directly onto motherboards. Similarly, this approach supports easier processor upgrades to extend equipment lifecycles while also guiding systems into the modern age.

Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) COMs based on open standards offer several additional benefits over fully custom designs when accelerating equipment repairs or upgrades:

• Ready-made computing platforms offer faster time-to-market and component availability while streamlining development.
• Standardized integration promotes greater interoperability between different processing chipsets and solutions across multiple vendors, easing supply chain concerns.
• High levels of integration often support industrial-grade robustness, with some vendors offering pre-certification against shock and vibration—for example.

Also known as system-on-modules (SOMs), COMs are typically mounted on a custom application-specific carrier board that provides access to external connection ports, displays, and other operator-facing features. By maintaining the same carrier design and simply replacing the COM with one of the same standard and pinout, manufacturers can easily upgrade product lines with minimal hardware changes over multiple product generations, saving significant development time and cost. However, choice of COM standard and initial carrier design set the available interfaces for the application, so these decisions have long-term implications.

SMARC versus COM Express – Performance and practical implementation

While there are many open COM standards available, SMARC and COM Express present two standards that are well suited for industrial settings. Both offer high-speed interfaces like PCI Express (PCIe), USB, and Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) to support the high-bandwidth peripherals of industrial systems, but there are fundamental differences between them.

Typically, SMARC offers wide Arm and low-power x86 support and caters to smaller, lower-power devices, with vision-focused I/O like MIPI-CSI for cameras and LVDS for flat panel displays that make it ideal for mobile deployments. In contrast, COM Express encompasses several subtypes that predominantly support higher performance x86 processors and higher bandwidth I/O. This increases application versatility at the expense of typically higher power consumption. The COM Express subtypes offer tradeoff between board size, signaling, and power envelopes. Table 1 summarizes how these differences affect both the carrier board design and SMARC vs COM Express Type 6 Compact suitability for specific industrial automation applications.

Table 1: Comparing the effect of COM standard on carrier board design and application area.

When aiming to reduce downtime and ease upgrades, SMARC’s widespread Arm and low-power x86 support increases COM replacement flexibility with minimal to no carrier board redesign—though some I/O differences may require consideration during initial configuration. Nevertheless, SMARC’s fewer high-speed lanes set a lower performance ceiling than COM Express, limiting functionality. Alternatively, COM Express presents a more flexible, powerful alternative to SMARC, with a mature ecosystem that can be useful when sourcing replacement modules. However, higher TDP chipsets may make it more challenging to create sealed, fanless equipment that requires less maintenance, increasing routine downtime requirements.

How COM standards define equipment functionality

To illustrate the importance of COM standard choice when designing industrial automation equipment, the following comparison presents two different COMs with identical processors yet very different potential.

SECO’s industrial-grade SOM-SMARC-ASL and SOM-COMe-CT6-ASL are both based on the Intel Atom® x7000RE Series processors— codename Amston Lake—and support TSN (Time Sensitive Networking) and TCC (Time Coordinated Computing) functionality that are essential for tightly coordinated automation tasks. While both COMs feature an integrated Intel UHD graphics controller that supports up to 3 independent displays, a more in-depth analysis—shown in Table 2—reveals SOM-SMARC-ASL’s focus on graphics and networking and SOM-COMe-CT6-ASL’s shift towards high-speed peripheral and mass storage interfaces.

Table 2: A comparison of Intel Atom x7000RE implementations on different COM standards.

By examining both COMs in this way, it is easier to see why SMARC is better suited for IoT gateways and compact HMIs and COM Express thrives in automated assembly and inspection systems—despite identical processors at the heart of each COM. For the SOM-COMe-CT6-ASL, the high performance per watt of Intel Atom processors also eases thermal management requirements, enabling more compact designs than typical COM Express solutions.

Still, it is important to understand why choosing the right COM standard is more important than specific chipsets for minimizing downtime and extending equipment lifecycles: Chipsets and performance can be upgraded, but baseline functionality is set by the carrier and the COM standard that sits upon it.

Further details on SMARC and COM Express–based solutions built on Intel Atom processors are available on SECO’s product pages.

If these architectural considerations are relevant to your roadmap, you can contact us to start a technical discussion and explore which approach best fits your specific application requirements.