Intel Ships Pentium 350 For Servers

[Guest]

Intel has published information about a new entry-level server processor, which is, apparently, already shipping.

Intel Ships Pentium 350 For Servers : Read more

 

[memadmax]

mmm, sweet?
Useful for a web server perhaps?

 

[de5_Roy]

watch out interlagos, heeeeeeere comes pentium!

 

[Guest]

"The Pentium 350 does not support VT-d and Trusted Execution."

Pffffffffffffffffff

 

[COLGeek]

Looks like a potentially leading candidate in the low end server market, especially where heat/power is a concern.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]COLGeek[/nom]Looks like a potentially leading candidate in the low end server market, especially where heat/power is a concern.[/citation]

No chance... without VT-d?

 

[Guest]

Perhaps good for a cheap, power efficient MineCraft server

 

[randomstar]

Looks to me to be aimed as single App servers, Web servers, Small Business 2011 servers, windows home server, etc.
if it is as detailed in this article, it would be a home run.

 

[joytech22]

15W? That's pretty damn good.

 

[PreferLinux]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]No chance... without VT-d?[/citation]
[citation][nom]M2222222244[/nom]"The Pentium 350 does not support VT-d and Trusted Execution."Pffffffffffffffffff[/citation]
I suggest you find out what VT_d is. It is not VT_x, which is the important one.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I suggest you find out what VT_d is. It is not VT_x, which is the important one.

Doesn't matter, the more virtualization the better. However, it might turn out to be not really necessary if you're not running some complex hosting with a bunch of VMs... so yes, I take my words back.

 

[__Miguel_]

Hmm, actually, that CPU seems a VERY good option for headless entry-level servers... Like consumer/prosumer NASes... I'd consider one as a replacement for my E3300... 2 cores, 4 threads, 2+GHz, in a 15W TDP... couple that with a H61-based motherboard with 6 SATA ports and you actually have a complete Atom killer...

Wow, I wonder about pricing and retail availability...

Miguel

 

[sinfulpotato]

Intel stop using the Pentium name. When I see it I think.. HOT and SLOW.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Hmm, actually, that CPU seems a VERY good option for headless entry-level servers... Like consumer/prosumer NASes... I'd consider one as a replacement for my E3300... 2 cores, 4 threads, 2+GHz, in a 15W TDP... couple that with a H61-based motherboard with 6 SATA ports and you actually have a complete Atom killer...

Wow, I wonder about pricing and retail availability...

Miguel

Price is mentioned in the article, it's $167, IIRC. For that price, I'd rather go with a Pentiun G620 - eats more power, yes, but costs only $71.

 

[mavroxur]

So all Pentium classic, Pentium 2, 3, and 4 processors were slow? Hell, most of them were the fastest thing you could get back in the day. The last time AMD was on top of the performance market, Moses was wearing short pants. Seriously, what was it? Back in the early 2000's with the Thunderbird Athlons against the Willamette Pentium 4s? Once the Northwood core came onto the scene, it was game over for AMD, and has been pretty much ever since.

 

[__Miguel_]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]Price is mentioned in the article, it's $167, IIRC.[/citation]
Actually, that's the price for the E3110 Xeon, not the Pentium 350.

Odd thing, though: the Ark page on the Pentium 350 reveals it to be a 2-core, 4-thread CPU running at 1.2GHz, not 2.2GHz... Very odd... I wonder where's the error: the article, the Ark page, or me (I might have picked up the wrong CPU, though I don't really think so...).

If it's really a 1.2GHz part, then I don't really see the point... Except for high-end x86 routers, low-power NASes (still, potentially worse than Atom, and the 620T might be more powerful), or very light-load servers, it seems more of a gimmick than anything else...

Still, great to know there is decent (when compared to Atom and such) x86 power to be had in that TDP range. Though knowing Intel, being of the Xeon, it probably means it costs as much as a 620T, because of the two extra threads, which is not really very good... But let's see more about that one.

Miguel

 

[blibba]

Even at 1.2GHZ I think it'd still eat an Atom for breakfast.

 

[__Miguel_]

[citation][nom]blibba[/nom]Even at 1.2GHZ I think it'd still eat an Atom for breakfast.[/citation]
Oh, most likely yes. Though I don't know about the power consumption... 15W is way overboard when comparing to an Atom chip...

Miguel

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]Doesn't matter, the more virtualization the better. However, it might turn out to be not really necessary if you're not running some complex hosting with a bunch of VMs... so yes, I take my words back.[/citation]
On a dual-core processor with HT...you're not going to be "running come complex hosting with a bunch of VMs"..... You'd only be able to run 1 VM "efficiently"....

[citation][nom]mavroxur[/nom]So all Pentium classic, Pentium 2, 3, and 4 processors were slow? Hell, most of them were the fastest thing you could get back in the day. The last time AMD was on top of the performance market, Moses was wearing short pants. Seriously, what was it? Back in the early 2000's with the Thunderbird Athlons against the Willamette Pentium 4s? Once the Northwood core came onto the scene, it was game over for AMD, and has been pretty much ever since.[/citation]
AMD's Athlon walked on water compared to the Pentium-3, Pentium-4 and Pentium-D processors....

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]__Miguel_[/nom]Actually, that's the price for the E3110 Xeon, not the Pentium 350.Odd thing, though: the Ark page on the Pentium 350 reveals it to be a 2-core, 4-thread CPU running at 1.2GHz, not 2.2GHz... Very odd... I wonder where's the error: the article, the Ark page, or me (I might have picked up the wrong CPU, though I don't really think so...).If it's really a 1.2GHz part, then I don't really see the point... Except for high-end x86 routers, low-power NASes (still, potentially worse than Atom, and the 620T might be more powerful), or very light-load servers, it seems more of a gimmick than anything else...Still, great to know there is decent (when compared to Atom and such) x86 power to be had in that TDP range. Though knowing Intel, being of the Xeon, it probably means it costs as much as a 620T, because of the two extra threads, which is not really very good... But let's see more about that one.Miguel[/citation]

You're right, probably an article problem, i doubt intel would post the wrong specs to their page.

It looks more powerful than the atom, seeing that atom procs are all 45nm, and Sandy bridge's IPC is awesome. Plus atoms don't have ECC support, or so the Ark page says.

As a side note, i'd love to see what intel does with low-powered ivy bridge procs, i mean how low will they be able to go? their -T series models would probably be 15-25 W...highly efficient, low powered systems excite me for some reason. lol.

 

[Filiprino]

Is there AES support? That would be perfect for a RAID with encrypted filesystem.

 

[ojas]

Does anyone ever check Wolfgang's articles for feedback (i know he doesn't)? or is just assumed we'll always troll him?

PLEASE CORRECT THE GHz TOM'S.

[citation][nom]Filiprino[/nom]Is there AES support? That would be perfect for a RAID with encrypted filesystem.[/citation]
Nope only core i5s and i7s have it from the mainstream line-up.

 

[jgutz2006]

from 40 to 15 sounds impressive for a server chip, but is the performance of that xeon chip 2.66 times as powerful over the pentium? performance per watt means more than the actual processors power consumption as you will be putting in a few more times as many chips, in additional motherboards with additional RAM chips?

 

[K2N hater]

Pentium 350? Isn't it a Pentium II?

/sarcasm

 

[eddieroolz]

For some reason, the article looked like it was misplaced from the 90s. The name is probably the culprit.