This will be a bit disjointed I think, I'm in a bit of a rush:
I suppose the two big picture things to keep in mind between the Soviet Union and China during those periods are firstly Mao's version of Communism put a lot more emphasis on the peasantry and communes compared to the urban workers and industrialisation than the Bolshevik version of Communism. Secondly China's revolution was still a relatively new thing, but Khrushchev and then Brezhnev were leaders of a system that was quite well established.
So while in practice China still pursued industrial development, it also ran big propaganda campaigns around village communes. The best comparison would be between the way the Soviet Communists talked up Magnitogorsk in the 1930s - a modern steel plant with effectively a brand new city attached to it (which according to the propaganda would be run/socialised etc. on new modern and socialist lines etc.). Then compare this to Mao's Great Leap Forward and the propaganda around backyard steel furnances - distinctly not modern but emphasising the commune and countryside as the heart of the target and heart of the revolution.
By the Khrushchev era the emphasis was swinging more towards the consumer in a way - the industrial drive was essentially supposed to build the new world. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were in turn expected/trying to deliver those good times. So under Khrushchev the big building drive was around apartments and agriculture - but for example his drive to grow corn was supposed to have a knock on effect in increasing beef production rather than just focus on basic staples (e.g. wheat for the Russians, rice for China). The Brezhnev era continued these efforts to make better housing, appliances etc. available to the general population, rather than emphasising rapid development and industrialisation. Even Brezhnev's late and basically failed RAPO reform in agriculture was part of a general attempt to improve provision of products.
So again the contrast with China is during this period they're ideological/practice drive is around development, rather than sharing the spoils. As well as those furnances there was a huge drive around increasing agricultural output - not to make sure there was more meat on the table so much as to make sure everyone had the basics. They're focusing on steel and such because it is a building material for massive projects (in both the Soviet and Maoist example there was also a defense industry dimension but anyways), compared to finished products for domestic consumers.
Ideologically in China you're also seeing a greater emphasis on 'revolutionary' methods - so instead of building up capability incrementally over time, they essentially try to do it right away and substitute enthusiasm for anything missing. Again this isn't too far off the Soviet experience during industrialisation decades prior - such as the use and promotion of shock workers.
During the Brezhnev era particularly however you're starting to see what is often called 'mature socialism' - basically a lesser emphasis on growth and revolutionary action, instead with a greater emphasis on gradualism, intensive development and stability. Khrushchev sort of kept the pressure on the party (and hence the feeling of chaos and activism) with his reshuffles of the party structure, but with the exception of his interventions there was still a general move towards stability. By Brezhnev there were several public statements about respecting the opinions of technical experts instead of trying to solve problems through party directives.
So tl;dr they were at at different 'ages' and had different ideological outlooks in the first place.
Some quick references:
William Taubman "Khrushchev: The Man, His Era".
I always struggle to think of a good single reference for the Brezhnev era. Archie Brown and Michael Kaser editted two collections of essays that cover the policy and activities of the period very well though.
While I think of it, J Arch Getty talks up the 'revolutionary' vs. 'practical' approaches to industrialisation in Origins of the Great Purge. He overplays the divisions etc. but an interesting view point never the less.
Stephen Kotkin, "Magnetic Mountain" covers the Magnitogorsk commentary and the Soviet Union in the 1930s.
On the Chinese side I'm leaning fairly heavily on Phillip Short's "Mao: A Biography"