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 C3858 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£290PassMark multi-core score:5040N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1310TDP (Thermal design power):25 W

Intel Atom C3858 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 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 56% of models
Score components

40%

6.0

Technical score

25%

6.0

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 56% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
6.0

Technical score

Technical score
6.0/ 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–² Better than 53% of models
Score components

60%

5.6

Performance

18%

7.0

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 53%
6.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 69% of models

6.0

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 69%
?

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~ £290
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...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #1 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Atom C3858

Technical score
Technical score
6.0/ 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–² Better than 53% of models
Score components:

60%

5.6

Performance

18%

7.0

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.0
Reviews score
6.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

7.2
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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
12
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 12 CPU cores, which is more than 79.9% of processors and equal to 5.7% of processors.
CPU threads
12
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 53% of processors and equal to 14.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
12x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 12x2.0 GHz which is higher than that of 73.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
5,040
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 5,040 in PassMark, which is lower than 73% 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
?
L2 cache
12 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
L1 cache
672 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 672 KB which is larger than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% 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)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 25 W which is lower than that of 75.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 25 W which is lower than that of 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% 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 C3858 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 3.93x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,564 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,563.97 vs 398.015
  • 4x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    12 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 46.2% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (95.2 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    95.2 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (12x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (server vs mobile).
    server vs mobile
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 3.93x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,564 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,563.97 vs 398.015
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (12x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 4 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 4x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    12 MB vs 3 MB
  • 46.2% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (95.2 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    95.2 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 75% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (672 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    672 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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.
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 72.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (702 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    702 vs 2,558
  • 81.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (284 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    284 vs 1,535
  • 56.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,040 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,040 vs 11,469
  • 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 (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, 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, SHA, 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, SHA, 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 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
  • 10.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 69% of models

    6.0

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.0 vs 6.7
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, 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, SHA, 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, SHA, 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).
    August 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 72.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (702 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    702 vs 2,558
  • 81.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (284 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    284 vs 1,535
  • 56.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,040 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,040 vs 11,469
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 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
  • 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
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 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
03/06/2020
Lab preview · Embedded network chip
Verdict
The Intel Atom C3858 is a 12-core, 25W chip with four 10GbE ports and 20 I/O lanes, suited to flexible network boards, though it has less I/O than Xeon D.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Atom C3858

  • High core count (12 cores) within a very low 25W power envelope
  • Excellent networking capabilities with quad 10GbE MAC support
  • Supports high memory capacity (up to 256GB RDIMM) and ECC memory
  • Includes QuickAssist Technology (QAT) for hardware acceleration up to 20Gbps
  • Flexible High-Speed I/O (HSIO) lanes that can be configured for PCIe or SATA
  • SoC design reduces overall system complexity, size, and cost by eliminating the need for a separate PCH

What customers don't like about Intel Atom C3858

  • Relatively low per-core/single-threaded performance compared to larger architectures
  • Lacks support for certain instruction sets like BMI2, which can limit performance in specific workloads
  • No integrated GPU (iGPU), requiring separate graphics if needed for display
  • High platform entry cost; motherboard and SoC combos are often priced for enterprise/edge rather than consumer use
  • May struggle to fully saturate all four 10GbE ports under heavy computation due to CPU limits
  • Requires external PHYs for most networking applications despite having the integrated MAC

Verdict

The Intel Atom C3858 is a high-density server processor from the Denverton family, featuring 16 cores and 16 threads with a 2.00 GHz base frequency and a 12MB L2 cache. Built on a 14nm process with a 25W TDP, it excels in networking and edge computing thanks to its integrated Intel QuickAssist Technology (QAT) providing up to 20Gbps crypto throughput and support for up to 256GB of DDR4-2400 ECC memory. While it offers excellent power efficiency and high core density for industrial applications, it lacks Turbo Boost technology, has relatively low single-core performance, and is limited by a lack of integrated graphics.

Compare Intel Atom C3858 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 C3858 and other processors

No results found