Tuesday, February 21st 2017

Intel Announces Atom C3000 Line with up to 16-cores and Enterprise Level Features

Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, underpowered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato, but this latest line of Atom CPUs appears to have evolved into something much different.

At the high end of the C3000 line, Intel is talking in terms of 16-core CPUs, and not 16-core weaklings either. The announcement includes some features borrowed from the coveted Xeon line, such as hardware virtualization, and RAS (reliability, availability, and serviceability) which is a tech designed for enterprise data needs.
Intel is aiming these chips square at the NAS and IoT markets, which makes sense since these hexacore-capable CPUs will be excellent for dealing with several parallel data streams. They may not be as fast as Intel's premium microarchitectures such as Kaby Lake and Broadwell, but they certainly are a far cry from the old Atoms of the netbook generation.

The C3000 series succeeds the flawed C2000 Atom series of products, which caused a good number of networking and NAS style devices to fail prematurely due to a design flaw. Provided Intel keeps quality control up and avoids a similar fate, the C3000 has all the specs to be an interesting product indeed. The new line is scheduled to launch in the second half of 2017.Source: PCWorld
Add your own comment

34 Comments on Intel Announces Atom C3000 Line with up to 16-cores and Enterprise Level Features

#1
lexluthermiester
Quote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.
Posted on Reply
#2
NdMk2o1o
lexluthermiester said:
Quote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.
Why are you taking it like a personal attack, they are low performance chips that are intended for certain use scenarios and tasks as you mentioned but when they cant perform those tasks to an acceptable level then they will get the criticism they deserve and is some cases they aren't able to deliver...

But maybe you're right, I'm sure with your vast knowledge and contributions here on TPU you are indeed qualified to advise TPU to stop with their "mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that you seem to have uncovered.
Posted on Reply
#3
theoneandonlymrk
lexluthermiester said:
Quote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.
Bah , compromised performance is all atoms were about too slow to be a good experience and too fast to get anywhere near arm.
These are server chips though so ,also not atom and are right up Facebook's Street but as others commented , these will likely supplant far more expensive Intel processors in some markets , a strange win then and by the looks of Naples too little too late.
Posted on Reply
#4
LYCANTROATH
hahaha so hilarious and so true... you makes my day
Posted on Reply
#5
R-T-B
lexluthermiester said:
Quote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.
Wasn't my intention, I may have let a bit more of my personal experience with a particularly poor (and pink, thanks @Toothless) atom netbook creep into my writing than is professional. Thanks for the criticism, while I won't take it down (because that would look like I was trying to hide something), I will keep this in mind for future writings.
Posted on Reply
#6
lexluthermiester
NdMk2o1o said:
Why are you taking it like a personal attack, they are low performance chips that are intended for certain use scenarios and tasks as you mentioned but when they cant perform those tasks to an acceptable level then they will get the criticism they deserve and is some cases they aren't able to deliver...

But maybe you're right, I'm sure with your vast knowledge and contributions here on TPU you are indeed qualified to advise TPU to stop with their "mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that you seem to have uncovered.
So it would seem you've missed the point. That's ok.
Posted on Reply
#7
R-T-B
Honestly, I welcome feedback from everyone and anyone. This is nothing to get worked up about.
Posted on Reply
#8
m1dg3t
Do these up n' croak too or just the c2000? LoL
Posted on Reply
#9
lexluthermiester
m1dg3t said:
Do these up n' croak too or just the c2000? LoL
It seems Intel figured out that problem and it isn't likely to pop up again, pun intended.
Posted on Reply
#10
R-T-B
lexluthermiester said:
It seems Intel figured out that problem and it isn't likely to pop up again, pun intended.
One would hope. Of course they could always pull a Samsung and have their "fix" do the exact same thing.

I'd hope the industry is learning rather than regressing though. ;)
Posted on Reply
#11
Ferrum Master
R-T-B said:
Wasn't my intention, I may have let a bit more of my personal experience with a particularly poor (and pink, thanks @Toothless) atom netbook creep
That's actually slower single core wise as my Pentium 3 funbox as we benched in CPU-Z thread.

Call that progress :D
Posted on Reply
#12
R-T-B
Ferrum Master said:
That's actually slower single core wise as my Pentium 3 funbox as we benched in CPU-Z thread.

Call that progress :D
That pink netbook sat in the server closet with it's pink case removed for about 3 months before being pulled out due to being a horrible NAS and thrown in a pile of misc circuit boards. It's still there, looking sad.

But again, I should never have tried to use it as an NAS, honestly. Not its purpose. The chips above? Now those are NAS chips.
Posted on Reply
#13
theoneandonlymrk
R-T-B said:
That pink netbook sat in the server closet with it's pink case removed for about 3 months before being pulled out due to being a horrible NAS and thrown in a pile of misc circuit boards. It's still there, looking sad.

But again, I should never have tried to use it as an NAS, honestly. Not its purpose.
I have a blue one I was half tempted to fit an ssd too , just to see but nope the boot time pain keeps me away.
Posted on Reply
#14
lexluthermiester
R-T-B said:
One would hope. Of course they could always pull a Samsung and have their "fix" do the exact same thing.

I'd hope the industry is learning rather than regressing though. ;)
Now lets be fair, the Note 7 battery problem was a manufacturing problem on the part of the battery maker. Samsung had little to do with it and yet has had to bare the brunt of the damage. But you're right, one would hope that Intel takes the right approach at the solution. And if history is any indication, they very likely will.

theoneandonlymrk said:
I have a blue one I was half tempted to fit an ssd too , just to see but nope the boot time pain keeps me away.
One of the Atom based devices that I referred to above is an Emachines EM250. Single core 1.6 ghz Atom with 2GB of DDR2. It has AndroidX86 on it and runs smooth as silk. It does the job needed of it to and does it well. I actually have an older 240GB SSD in it and the boot up times, while not super fast, are good.
Posted on Reply
#15
theoneandonlymrk
lexluthermiester said:
One of the Atom based devices that I referred to above is an Emachines EM250. Single core 1.6 ghz Atom with 2GB of DDR2. It has AndroidX86 on it and runs smooth as silk. It does the job needed of it to and does it well. I actually have an older 240GB SSD in it and the boot up times, while not super fast, are good.
I'd rather use my phone (zenfone2)and easily could, powered USB hub keyboard and mouse and mirrorcast to a TV and it's a quad Intel OoO CPU so I could do something useful , even game and it also fits in my pocket and has 4-5 times the battery life in my overestimate;) :p
Posted on Reply
#16
R-T-B
lexluthermiester said:
Now lets be fair, the Note 7 battery problem was a manufacturing problem on the part of the battery maker. Samsung had little to do with it and yet has had to bare the brunt of the damage.
I was referring to the fact that they failed to do QA on the second battery line any better than the first... but yes, point taken. Time pressure certainly had a lot to do with their situation too. I'm pretty sure Intel at any rate is not eager to be on that same chopping block.
Posted on Reply
#17
lexluthermiester
R-T-B said:
I was referring to the fact that they failed to do QA on the second battery line any better than the first... but yes, point taken. Time pressure certainly had a lot to do with their situation too. I'm pretty sure Intel at any rate is not eager to be on that same chopping block.
I see. You're right of course.

theoneandonlymrk said:
I'd rather use my phone (zenfone2)and easily could, powered USB hub keyboard and mouse and mirrorcast to a TV and it's a quad Intel OoO CPU so I could do something useful , even game and it also fits in my pocket and has 4-5 times the battery life in my overestimate;) :p
Yes but a phone doesn't have a 10" screen, 3 full size usb ports and a decent sized keyboard. Hell, most tablets don't even have that. And Miracasting only works if you have a display that can do it. The other device I have is a GPD Win which is less than a year old and performs very well. But I digress..

My point was that the Atom CPU line is not useless. It had it's uses then and still does now. Not a power-house line of CPU, sure. But not useless or a nightmare to use.
Posted on Reply
#18
theoneandonlymrk
lexluthermiester said:
Yes but a phone doesn't have a 10" screen, 3 full size usb ports and a decent sized keyboard. Hell, most tablets don't even have that. And Miracasting only works if you have a display that can do it. The other device I have is a GPD Win which less than a year old and performs very well. But I digress..

My point was that the Atom CPU line is not useless. It had it's uses then and still does now. Not a power-house line of CPU, sure. But not useless or a nightmare to use.
I get you, we just have different levels of nightmare.
My works HDD lenovo pcs are also too slow at times with 8 cores.
Posted on Reply
#19
R-T-B
lexluthermiester said:
My point was that the Atom CPU line is not useless. It had it's uses then and still does now. Not a power-house line of CPU, sure. But not useless or a nightmare to use.
I agree with that. My main emphasis with the article is that the compute power is... well it is what it is. But it's certainly got it's place. I just got slightly dramatic in saying that.

I'd say as a primary computing device (like, for gaming) an Atom CPU is certainly nightmare material. But it was never meant for that either.
Posted on Reply
#20
lexluthermiester
theoneandonlymrk said:
I get you, we just have different levels of nightmare.
LOL! Very likely. ;-D

R-T-B said:
I agree with that. My main emphasis with the article is that the compute power is... well it is what it is. But it's certainly got it's place. I just got slightly dramatic in saying that.
Fair points. It really depends on individual perspective. Which gets back to the original complaint. TPU is one of those tech reporting sites that has earned a reputation for being impartial and objective in providing information about the industry. Yet lately there have been instances where the authors of various articles add personal opinion and bias. Quality journalism lacks those kinds of things. As a trusted and reputable media outlet, TPU has a responsibility to provide information as objectively as possible, reserving bias and personal opinion for a section that is qualified as such, if shared at all.

R-T-B said:
I'd say as a primary computing device (like, for gaming) an Atom CPU is certainly nightmare material. But it was never meant for that either.
Funny thing is, the aforementioned GPD Win has an Atom Z8700 with the HD405 IGP. You wouldn't think it would do much gaming, but I have been pleasantly surprised by how well it does. For example, it plays Crysis at a solid 30fps. While that requires some setting to be turned down or off, it still looks and plays well. Installed it mostly as a joke while showing it off to friends but then we all were surprised by how well it did. Plays a ton of classics the same way. But by no means is it a hardcore gaming platform.
Posted on Reply
#21
xorbe
And how much does a 16-core Atom cost?
Posted on Reply
#22
R-T-B
Quality journalism lacks those kinds of things. As a trusted and reputable media outlet, TPU has a responsibility to provide information as objectively as possible, reserving bias and personal opinion for a section that is qualified as such, if shared at all.
Strong points I couldn't agree more with. In an age of clickbait journalism, I'll do my best to remember that for future articles. We need to toe the line lest we fall like the rest.

xorbe said:
And how much does a 16-core Atom cost?
No idea, they actually "launch" second half of this year.
Posted on Reply
#23
Thefumigator
I own an AMD C60 (8 watts dual core with radeon) and I use it for server purposes only. I have some respect for the atom line too, but having a 16 core atom will only make sense if its power consumption is low enough. Windows 10 tablet anyone?
Posted on Reply
#24
R0H1T
lexluthermiester said:
Quote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.
Seriously try to keep up ~ An Intel Atom C2000 bug is killing products from multiple manufacturers
Intel Atom chips have been dying for at least 18 months – only now is truth coming to light

If anything the Atom C2K bug should've had much more press coverage, but then again there are obvious benefits of being Intel :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#25
kn00tcn
i dont care that much about TPU's writing, though it should make sure to keep words like 'some people' or 'certain cases' rather than using absolute terms

the users are going downhill though... & this thread is nothing compared to some others

even if 'everyone' is agreeing, they start mobbing on things like call of duty like complete elitist dicks
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment