Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Ships Pentium 350 For Servers

By - Source: Intel | B 24 comments

The Pentium 350 is based on the Sandy Bridge core sans graphics and is for socket LGA1155 and C202 or C204 chipsets.

While we do not have detailed information about this CPU, the specs of the dual-core chip closely match those of the 2.2 GHz Pentium G620T, but supports Hyperthreading as well as ECC DRAMs. There is no information on price, but we expect that Intel will charge a premium over the $70 620T and position the chip well below the cheapest Xeon processors, which currently sell for $167 (E3110, 45 nm, 3 GHz). It is interesting to note that the TDP of this Pentium is just 15 watts, which makes this CPU the lowest power server CPU in Intel's lineup. The current 32 nm Xeon L-series is rated at 40 watts.

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

Display 24 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 14 Hide
    Anonymous , November 22, 2011 4:13 PM
    "The Pentium 350 does not support VT-d and Trusted Execution."

    Pffffffffffffffffff
  • 10 Hide
    de5_Roy , November 22, 2011 4:09 PM
    watch out interlagos, heeeeeeere comes pentium!
Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    memadmax , November 22, 2011 4:08 PM
    mmm, sweet?
    Useful for a web server perhaps?
  • 10 Hide
    de5_Roy , November 22, 2011 4:09 PM
    watch out interlagos, heeeeeeere comes pentium!
  • 14 Hide
    Anonymous , November 22, 2011 4:13 PM
    "The Pentium 350 does not support VT-d and Trusted Execution."

    Pffffffffffffffffff
  • 5 Hide
    COLGeek , November 22, 2011 4:15 PM
    Looks like a potentially leading candidate in the low end server market, especially where heat/power is a concern.
  • -3 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , November 22, 2011 4:57 PM
    COLGeekLooks like a potentially leading candidate in the low end server market, especially where heat/power is a concern.


    No chance... without VT-d?
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , November 22, 2011 5:14 PM
    Perhaps good for a cheap, power efficient MineCraft server
  • 2 Hide
    randomstar , November 22, 2011 5:18 PM
    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.
  • 7 Hide
    joytech22 , November 22, 2011 6:10 PM
    15W? That's pretty damn good.
  • 3 Hide
    PreferLinux , November 22, 2011 6:25 PM
    amk-aka-PhantomNo chance... without VT-d?

    M2222222244"The Pentium 350 does not support VT-d and Trusted Execution."Pffffffffffffffffff

    I suggest you find out what VT_d is. It is not VT_x, which is the important one.
  • 0 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , November 22, 2011 6:29 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 3 Hide
    __Miguel_ , November 22, 2011 7:51 PM
    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
  • -5 Hide
    sinfulpotato , November 22, 2011 8:17 PM
    Intel stop using the Pentium name. When I see it I think.. HOT and SLOW.
  • -3 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , November 22, 2011 8:30 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • -2 Hide
    mavroxur , November 22, 2011 8:37 PM
    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.

  • 2 Hide
    __Miguel_ , November 22, 2011 8:54 PM
    amk-aka-PhantomPrice is mentioned in the article, it's $167, IIRC.

    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
  • 1 Hide
    blibba , November 22, 2011 9:25 PM
    Even at 1.2GHZ I think it'd still eat an Atom for breakfast.
  • 2 Hide
    __Miguel_ , November 22, 2011 9:50 PM
    blibbaEven at 1.2GHZ I think it'd still eat an Atom for breakfast.

    Oh, most likely yes. Though I don't know about the power consumption... 15W is way overboard when comparing to an Atom chip...

    Miguel
  • 4 Hide
    sykozis , November 22, 2011 11:22 PM
    amk-aka-PhantomDoesn'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.

    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"....

    mavroxurSo 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.

    AMD's Athlon walked on water compared to the Pentium-3, Pentium-4 and Pentium-D processors....
  • 1 Hide
    ojas , November 23, 2011 1:10 AM
    __Miguel_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


    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.
  • 0 Hide
    Filiprino , November 23, 2011 7:35 AM
    Is there AES support? That would be perfect for a RAID with encrypted filesystem.
Display more comments