OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Atom C3338 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark multi-core score:1028N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1310TDP (Thermal design power):8.5 W

Intel Atom C3338 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

40%

4.8

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 60% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 60%
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 64%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 50% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 50%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £55
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Atom C3338

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components:

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

4.8
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.5
Processor type
server
This processor belongs to the server processor class, which is more advanced than that of 94.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1310
This processor uses the FCBGA1310 CPU socket, which is older than that of 92.4% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94.3% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
2.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 99.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.5 GHz which is lower than that of 96.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,028
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,028 in PassMark, which is lower than 99% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 85.9% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
8.5 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 8.5 W which is lower than that of 96.6% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
8.5 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 8.5 W which is lower than that of 96.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
10.6 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 10.6 W which is lower than that of 95.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Atom C3338 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 81.1% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (8.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    8.5 W vs 45 W
  • 83.4% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10.6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    10.6 W vs 64 W
  • 81.1% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (8.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    8.5 W vs 45 W
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Denverton vs Kaby Lake).
    Denverton vs Kaby Lake
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Atom C3338 is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (server vs mobile).
    server vs mobile
  • 4x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Denverton vs Kaby Lake).
    Denverton vs Kaby Lake
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 81.1% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (8.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    8.5 W vs 45 W
  • 83.4% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10.6 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    10.6 W vs 64 W
  • 81.1% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (8.5 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    8.5 W vs 45 W
  • 91% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,028 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,028 vs 11,469
  • 68.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (806 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    806 vs 2,558
  • 50% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1310 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1310 vs FP5
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    January 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 91% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,028 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,028 vs 11,469
  • 68.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (806 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    806 vs 2,558
  • 50% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 13 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (15 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    15 vs 28
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 6 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (10 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    10 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
27/02/2017
Lab benchmarks · Low-power server chip
Verdict
The Intel Atom C3338 suits low-power storage and networking appliances with modern features, but performance-heavy work still favors larger Broadwell-DE cores.
9.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
20/04/2017
Lab test · Small NAS
Verdict
The Intel Atom C3338 NAS from Supermicro is quiet and draws little power, suited to simple 1GbE storage but weak for heavy CPU work.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Atom C3338

  • Significantly improved performance over the previous generation (Atom C2000 series).
  • Extremely low power consumption (9W TDP), making it ideal for 24/7 edge computing.
  • Higher L2 cache (4MB) compared to older dual-core Atom models.
  • Supports modern server features like ECC memory and PCIe 3.0.
  • Operates very quietly and stays cool even in small chassis environments.
  • Great value for low-cost, low-power x86 networking appliances or simple NAS units.

What customers don't like about Intel Atom C3338

  • Limited to only two cores and two threads, which restricts heavy multitasking.
  • Lacks integrated graphics, requiring a separate GPU if used for anything with a display.
  • Poorly suited for desktop use or CPU-heavy storage tasks like data deduplication.
  • Overall performance is still significantly behind larger Intel Core or Broadwell-DE designs.
  • Single-channel memory controller limits total bandwidth compared to higher-end CPUs.
  • Drivers and software ecosystem support can be less mature compared to mainstream platforms.

Verdict

The Intel Atom C3338 is a dual-core, 2.20 GHz processor from the Denverton family, built on a 14nm process with a low 8.5W TDP. Designed for edge computing and network storage, it features 4MB cache, support for up to 128GB of DDR4 ECC memory, and integrated Intel QuickAssist Technology (QAT) for accelerated encryption. Its main pros include exceptional power efficiency and robust I/O capabilities like PCIe 3.0 and SATA lanes, though it is limited by its lack of hyper-threading and modest dual-core performance in multi-threaded workloads.

Compare Intel Atom C3338 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Atom C3338 and other processors

No results found