Intel releases 16 core CPU for $449 USD

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

9 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I should have been more specific.  They're good at what they're designed for, which is mainly lightweight single-task programs.  Something that actually uses 16 cores (or even more than 2) is going to be too much for an ATOM though.  You aren't going to be rendering videos on a tablet.

That's not what they are designed for. These are low power server and NAS CPUs. They do what they are meant to do, the same way the really low clock Xeons and Opterons do their job, not to mention HT. There are plenty of tasks in such use case that can benefit from multiple cores, even if weak, rather a few stronger ones, and are especially attractive if they come at a very low power budget.

These are not CPUs to power PCs.

[mariushm]

9 hours ago, bobhays said:

Encoding videos is one of the best uses of these atoms. Probably going to be amazing for freeNas/Plex servers.

Atom's are more basic cores and which also have small level1 and level 2  caches (and no l3 caches).which would kill the performance  (~1.2 MB L1 cache and 16 MB l2  compared to ryzen with three caches, 0.5 MB l1 + 4 MB l2 + 16 MB l3)

 

the intel page says they don't have turbo boost so should be basically locked at 2  ghz link

The C3955 is 2.1 ghz base, 2.4 ghz turbo, 16 cores link

 

but the networking stuff is cool ... 4 x 10 gbps can save some cash if you design a heavy nas.

though you could also spend $100 o n ryzen 3 1200, oc it, buy ddr4 memory with ecc support and spend 100$ per 10gbps card and probably get better performance.

[LukaH]

for a sec i thought this was relevant

[Coaxialgamer]

11 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Why though?  ATOM processors are crap.  Adding 14 extra pieces of crap to it doesn't make it gold.

 

11 hours ago, Mathematech said:

Wait... this is legit? I haven't read the articles yet, but this seems too out of place to be a real thing.

This is meant to compete with ARM servers ( manycore ) , on very parallel tasks . In this case atom fits the role well , as it allows for low power and cost on a chip that will end up being pretty powerful when all 16 cores are used.

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I should have been more specific.  They're good at what they're designed for, which is mainly lightweight single-task programs.  Something that actually uses 16 cores (or even more than 2) is going to be too much for an ATOM though.  You aren't going to be rendering videos on a tablet.

Funny you say that given that Airmont is the basis for the Knights Landing Xeon Phi.

[Coaxialgamer]

4 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Judging from the x5 z8300 it wont be a good idea to buy that junk. At that price point you are better off with a AMD APU...

this is a server chip ... there are workloads that can work well on this hardware , and it's in a totally different market than AMD's old steamroller chips.

[Coaxialgamer]

11 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I should have been more specific.  They're good at what they're designed for, which is mainly lightweight single-task programs.  Something that actually uses 16 cores (or even more than 2) is going to be too much for an ATOM though.  You aren't going to be rendering videos on a tablet.

the ATOM cores aren't just meant for tablets and low end craptops .

They are designed for use cases that require low power, low cost cores . Because of this , they also excel in many core designs if the workload can use them ( xeon phi is an example )

[porina]

13 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Funny you say that given that Airmont is the basis for the Knights Landing Xeon Phi.

In that scenario they're basically used to feed the FP units and not really do heavy lifting directly themselves.

[TheRandomness]

13 hours ago, CUDA_Cores said:

lol, My laptop has a 16 core (probably around 1GHz) CPU. 

It's at about 2GHz. The Gigabyte motherboard that has it is very well featured, too. With 4 mini SAS ports, it can support 16 SATA HDDs.

[bobhays]

4 hours ago, mariushm said:

Atom's are more basic cores and which also have small level1 and level 2  caches (and no l3 caches).which would kill the performance  (~1.2 MB L1 cache and 16 MB l2  compared to ryzen with three caches, 0.5 MB l1 + 4 MB l2 + 16 MB l3)

 

the intel page says they don't have turbo boost so should be basically locked at 2  ghz link

The C3955 is 2.1 ghz base, 2.4 ghz turbo, 16 cores link

 

but the networking stuff is cool ... 4 x 10 gbps can save some cash if you design a heavy nas.

though you could also spend $100 o n ryzen 3 1200, oc it, buy ddr4 memory with ecc support and spend 100$ per 10gbps card and probably get better performance.

What you said is true, but it's still amazing for low power video encoding and a file server. The main reasons being great networking, ECC support, and low power.

[AnonymousGuy]

These chips are meant to keep ARM out of the server market.  The "lots of really shitty cores" market.

[Drak3]

So, when is AMD dropping the price of the 1950X to be competitive with this thing?

[Mathematech]

11 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

 

This is meant to compete with ARM servers ( manycore ) , on very parallel tasks . In this case atom fits the role well , as it allows for low power and cost on a chip that will end up being pretty powerful when all 16 cores are used.

Oh, ok. Thanks.

[mr moose]

People constantly shitting on Atoms has been a thing that has been bugging me for a while now,  It's good to see a few people at least understand what they were designed for.

[aisle9]

On 8/22/2017 at 0:03 AM, JoostinOnline said:

I should have been more specific.  They're good at what they're designed for, which is mainly lightweight single-task programs.  Something that actually uses 16 cores (or even more than 2) is going to be too much for an ATOM though.  You aren't going to be rendering videos on a tablet.

Cinebench score might go up to 12, though.

[snortingfrogs]

Would love to build my Web server around one of these CPU's.

[paddy-stone]

On 22/08/2017 at 4:10 AM, ARikozuM said:

If they can price this around $300, it should be a victory for the home server folks trying to set up a nice NAS/Plex server. 

Exactly what I was thinking. That is some impressive hardware though for a $300 board, though I hope you're right as this seems like a winner to me and has my juices flowing

 

[paddy-stone]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

People constantly shitting on Atoms has been a thing that has been bugging me for a while now,  It's good to see a few people at least understand what they were designed for.

I had, and actually still have though it's unused now, one of the acer revo boxes from way back, and used that as a XBMC media PC. Was very capable, especially seeing as how you could just leave it in "sleep" mode when not being used so that you didn't have to wait for it to cold boot up when needed. I just finished building my newest NAS/server, but now am thinking of swapping the cpu/mobo out now I ahve seen this, most especially for the mini SAS connectivity, 10GbE and 16 core low power hardware, on the gigabyte board that is.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

I had, and actually still have though it's unused now, one of the acer revo boxes from way back, and used that as a XBMC media PC. Was very capable, especially seeing as how you could just leave it in "sleep" mode when not being used so that you didn't have to wait for it to cold boot up when needed. I just finished building my newest NAS/server, but now am thinking of swapping the cpu/mobo out now I ahve seen this, most especially for the mini SAS connectivity, 10GbE and 16 core low power hardware, on the gigabyte board that is.

I had a netbook, back when 7 hours run time was good, I usually got a day out of mine.  For the job it had to do I was very pleased.    I can certainly see the desire in this new CPU for home servers etc.  I am just setting up my first NAS now (previously ran a win7 box and just shared drives), the system is a little under powered and the thought of buying new hardware is exciting.

[JayLil]

I want to see this in a laptop too. I've got the GPD Pocket, and I love it as a portable programming workstation. But more cores would be awesome. I really want netbooks to be a thing again, and I want to see 8+ cores in them, even if they're low-powered Atom cores.

[LAwLz]

On 2017-08-22 at 3:46 PM, mariushm said:

you could also spend $100 o n ryzen 3 1200, oc it, buy ddr4 memory with ecc support and spend 100$ per 10gbps card and probably get better performance.

And much higher power consumption, and far bigger size, and chances are it would perform worse in a lot of workloads including but not limited to all the crypto acceleration that this Atom chip has, which you would need Ryzen Pro to get somewhat feature parity with.

[ravenshrike]

On 8/21/2017 at 10:57 PM, Hunter259 said:

The new atom's are actually pretty damn good. I have one in my tablet and it flys through windows 10 64bit. 

Can it run Crysis?

[mr moose]

I was about to say this is old news, then I realised it's an older thread.

[Jurrunio]

Wut? Mobile rendering laptop?

[System Error Message]

actually ATOM cores have lower IPCs than intel standard iseries cores. Theres a whole lot of differences here but ill list a few.

1) simpler (more like ARM rather than x86, simpler decoder less in CPU units)

2) less math (while even logics area slower the math performance is also slower too, a lot slower as this is one thing that takes a lot of power and heat)

3) less in busses and features (CPU has less features, slower busses, chipset too)

 

So for those looking to use it for some serious stuff its going to be a let down.

Some uses for atom based servers

- webserver

- monitoring server

- storage server

- media server that doesnt do live transcode or uses hardware based transcode

 

Some uses that arent suited

- render farm (not even GPGPU)

- plex (if you plan on live transcodes)

- game servers