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 C3558 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£80PassMark multi-core score:2431N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1310TDP (Thermal design power):16 W

Intel Atom C3558 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components

40%

4.2

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 68% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 51%
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 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 80% of models
Score components

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 80%
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)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. 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~ £80
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 C3558

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

5.0

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

4.2
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.3
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
SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES
This processor supports SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 86.5% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,431
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,431 in PassMark, which is lower than 91% 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
8 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L1 cache
224 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 224 KB which is smaller than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
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
2,133 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 78.8% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% 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)
16 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 16 W which is lower than that of 79.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
16 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 16 W which is lower than that of 78.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Atom C3558 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • 64.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (16 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    16 W vs 45 W
  • 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)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. 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
  • 64.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (16 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    16 W vs 45 W
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (server vs mobile).
    server vs mobile
  • 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)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • 3.13x cheaper
    Intel Atom C3558 is cheaper than the average processor (£80 vs £250).
    £80 vs £250
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (server vs mobile).
    server vs mobile
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Denverton vs Kaby Lake).
    Denverton vs Kaby Lake
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 64.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (16 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    16 W vs 45 W
  • 64.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (16 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    16 W vs 45 W
  • 84.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (822 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    822 vs 5,209
  • 78.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,431 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,431 vs 11,469
  • 66.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (856 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    856 vs 2,558
  • 46.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (822 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    822 vs 1,535
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 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 (SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, 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, NX bit, 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, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, 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, NX bit, 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, NX bit, 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).
    2017 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 84.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (822 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    822 vs 5,209
  • 78.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,431 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,431 vs 11,469
  • 66.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (856 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    856 vs 2,558
  • 46.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (822 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    822 vs 1,535
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 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% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (224 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    224 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 33.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,133 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.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Cameron Gray
≈ estimated
07/07/2023
Hands-on build · server hardware and pfSense tests
Verdict
Intel Atom C3558 is good value for a 10GbE pfSense router, though the replacement fans are louder.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
03/10/2017
Lab test · Embedded server chip
Verdict
The Intel Atom C3558 is a 16W four-core chip that suits firewalls, VPN gateways and 4–8 bay NAS units, but its 12 I/O lanes limit expansion.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Atom C3558

  • Exceptional power efficiency for its performance class (16W TDP)
  • Significant generational performance leap compared to the previous Atom C2558
  • Support for ECC RAM (up to 256GB), making it reliable for NAS and entry-level server builds
  • Solid performance for networking tasks such as VPN gateways and firewalls
  • Low heat output allows for quiet, fanless or low-noise system designs
  • Handles lightweight virtualization and containerized applications (like Docker) well

What customers don't like about Intel Atom C3558

  • Weak single-threaded performance compared to Xeon or Core series processors
  • Lacks Turbo Boost, which limits its ability to handle sudden computational spikes
  • Limited I/O capacity (12 HSIO lanes) compared to higher-end C3000 series models
  • Does not include integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU or remote management for display
  • Memory speed is limited to DDR4-2133, which some users feel is an artificial constraint
  • Struggles with CPU-intensive tasks like high-definition video transcoding

Verdict

The Intel Atom C3558 is a server-class processor from the Denverton (C3000) series featuring 4 cores, 4 threads, and a 2.20 GHz base and turbo frequency. Built on a 14nm lithography, it includes an 8MB L2 cache and supports up to 256GB of DDR4-2133 memory across two channels. Its main pros include a very low 16W TDP for energy efficiency, ECC memory support for data integrity, and integrated Intel QuickAssist Technology (QAT) to accelerate cryptographic and compression workloads. However, its primary cons are the lack of integrated graphics, relatively low single-core performance compared to modern consumer CPUs, and the absence of Intel Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost technologies.

Compare Intel Atom C3558 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 C3558 and other processors

No results found