1. Orchestration vs Configuration management: Chef is primarily designed for configuration management, which involves defining and enforcing system configurations across multiple nodes. It allows users to define the desired state of a system and Chef takes care of converging the actual state to the desired state. On the other hand, Salt is more focused on orchestration and remote execution. It enables users to execute commands or scripts on individual or multiple nodes, making it ideal for tasks such as deployment, monitoring, and managing complex infrastructures.

2. Master-Slave Architecture vs Masterless/Autonomous Architecture: Chef follows a traditional master-slave architecture, where there is a central server (master) that manages the configuration for multiple client nodes (slaves). The clients periodically pull the configuration from the server. In contrast, Salt follows a masterless or autonomous architecture, where every node can act as both a master and a minion. Each minion has a local copy of the configuration, allowing for more flexibility and resilience in case of network or server failures.

3. Domain-Specific Language vs Remote Execution and Task Execution System: Chef defines its configurations using a domain-specific language (DSL) called Ruby DSL or Chef DSL. It provides a rich set of resources and libraries to express system configurations. Salt, on the other hand, uses YAML or Jinja templates to define configurations. Additionally, Salt provides a powerful remote execution and task execution system, allowing users to perform tasks and run commands on targeted minions, making it more suitable for managing dynamic infrastructure.

4. Scalability and Performance: While both Chef and Salt can handle large-scale deployments, Salt is generally considered to be more scalable and performant. Salt leverages ZeroMQ as its transport layer, which provides high-speed messaging and parallel execution capabilities, making it efficient in managing large infrastructures with thousands of nodes. Chef, on the other hand, relies on a client-pull model, which can introduce delays and overhead for larger deployments.

5. Plug-in Ecosystem: Chef has a mature and extensive plug-in ecosystem, with a wide range of community-contributed cookbooks that provide ready-made recipes for various applications and services. This makes it easier for Chef users to automate the deployment and management of popular software stacks. Salt, although also having a growing plug-in ecosystem, may not have the same breadth and depth of available modules and plug-ins as Chef.

6. Community and Adoption: Both Chef and Salt have active communities, but Chef has been around longer and has a larger user base. As a result, it may be easier to find resources, documentation, and support for Chef. However, Salt has gained popularity in recent years due to its ease of use and performance advantages, and its community and adoption are steadily growing.

In Summary, Chef is primarily focused on configuration management with a master-slave architecture, while Salt emphasizes orchestration and remote execution with a masterless architecture. Salt is often considered more scalable and performant, with a powerful task execution system, while Chef has a more extensive plug-in ecosystem and a larger user base.