Why WebAssembly Runs Slower on Embedded Devices — And How Hardware Acceleration Achieved a 142 Speedup

#webdev #programming #javascript #webassembly

1. Introduction: The Gap Between WASM’s Promise and Reality

We’ve all heard the claim: WebAssembly (WASM) can run programs written in C, C++, or Rust in the browser at near-native speed.
But then you try running a simple Fibonacci algorithm on a Raspberry Pi… and it’s slower than plain JavaScript.

Why?

WASM was designed to break through performance bottlenecks in the browser — providing a safe, efficient binary format that’s small, fast to load, and portable across platforms. On desktop PCs or laptops, WASM often outperforms JavaScript by several times.

However, when you shift focus to embedded devices — IoT sensors, in-vehicle controllers, robotics — the story changes dramatically. In some cases, WASM not only fails to beat JavaScript but actually runs slower. The dream of “near-native speed” suddenly feels far away.

The real bottleneck isn’t WASM itself — it’s how WASM is executed in embedded environments. In this article, we’ll explore a new hardware acceleration approach that allows WASM to run blazingly fast on embedded systems — delivering over 100× performance gains.

2. The Performance Challenge of WASM on Embedded Systems

On desktop systems, WASM execution is typically about 4× faster than JavaScript. This is because it skips the heavy interpretation phase and executes lower-level, optimized instructions.

But on embedded systems, it’s often the other way around.

Example: On a Raspberry Pi 4B (ARM Cortex-A72, 1.5 GHz), benchmarks show WASM running slower than JavaScript. Why?

Lower CPU frequency PC processors run at 3 GHz+ with complex architectures and large caches. Embedded CPUs run at lower frequencies with limited compute power.
Limited memory bandwidth and cache Embedded devices have smaller memory with higher latency. WASM runtimes use more memory, further slowing things down.
Runtime overhead — the real killer Software WASM execution involves bytecode interpretation, just-in-time (JIT) compilation, and runtime profiling. On resource-constrained devices, these steps can cost more time than the actual computation.

In short: Even though WASM is efficient, runtime overhead negates the advantage in embedded systems.

3. A Different Path: Running WASM Directly in Hardware

If software runtimes are too slow, why not let the hardware understand WASM bytecode directly?

Just as GPUs accelerate graphics and TPUs accelerate machine learning, a WASM hardware accelerator could execute WASM instructions natively.

Key design features:

Harvard architecture — Separates instruction and data storage, avoiding memory bandwidth contention.
Stack-based memory architecture (LIFO) — WASM is inherently stack-based, so hardware can map directly to its execution model, simplifying decoding.
Dedicated integer and floating-point units — Supports i32 and f32 operations for fast arithmetic.
Hardware-level isolation — Prevents WASM from accessing system memory directly, improving security.

The accelerator uses an FSM (finite state machine) to manage execution and can decode WASM’s standard encoding (LEB128) in hardware, bypassing the software runtime entirely.

4. Experimental Results: A 142× Performance Boost

So how does it perform in practice?

Researchers implemented the WASM accelerator on a Raspberry Pi 4B using an FPGA (50 MHz), running five classic algorithms: Fibonacci, factorial, binomial coefficient, matrix multiplication, and more.

Baselines tested:

Native C (compiled to ARM instructions)
Plain C code
JavaScript
Software WASM (V8 engine)

Results:

Software WASM was the slowest, even slower than JavaScript.
Hardware-accelerated WASM achieved up to 142× speedup.
In some cases, it even outperformed desktop WASM runtimes.

Implication: In IoT, industrial control, or autonomous driving — where real-time performance is critical — this approach could remove performance bottlenecks entirely.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

This is still an early-stage technology, with limitations:

Limited instruction support — Currently only 36 WASM instructions (i32, f32), no 64-bit (i64, f64) support yet.
No JavaScript interoperability — Only pure WASM is supported; can’t call into JS.
Frequency constraints — The FPGA runs at 50 MHz; ASIC implementations could run much faster.

Potential future improvements:

Extend the instruction set to cover more operations.
Develop higher-frequency ASIC designs.
Integrate with WebGPU, WebRTC, and other modern web APIs.
Provide SDKs for seamless browser-to-hardware integration.

6. Conclusion: Hardware Acceleration is the Future, But Ecosystem Matters

WASM’s poor performance on embedded devices is mainly due to runtime overhead. Hardware accelerators that execute WASM bytecode directly can bypass interpretation and JIT compilation, delivering massive performance boosts — potentially transforming IoT and industrial automation.

But hardware acceleration alone won’t replace software runtimes. The likely future is a hybrid model, where browsers can directly call hardware WASM modules — similar to how GPUs sparked the deep learning revolution.

References