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 C3958 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400PassMark multi-core score:3929N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1310TDP (Thermal design power):31 W

Intel Atom C3958 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.

6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components

40%

5.8

Technical score

25%

5.8

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 62% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
5.8

Technical score

Technical score
5.8/ 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–² Better than 50% of models
Score components

60%

5.6

Performance

18%

5.7

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 50%
5.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.8/ 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 70% of models

5.8

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

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 70%
?

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~ £400
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 C3958

Technical score
Technical score
5.8/ 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–² Better than 50% of models
Score components:

60%

5.6

Performance

18%

5.7

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

5.8
Reviews score
5.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

7.0
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, SHA, RDRAND
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA, RDRAND instruction sets, which is narrower support than 65.2% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
16x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 16x2.0 GHz which is higher than that of 86.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,929
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,929 in PassMark, which is lower than 78.5% 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
16 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
L1 cache
896 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 896 KB which is larger than that of 82.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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)
31 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 31 W which is lower than that of 67.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
31 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 31 W which is lower than that of 67.6% 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 C3958 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 43.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,201 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,201 vs 1,535
  • 2.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (896 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    896 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 12 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (16 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    16 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 43.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,201 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,201 vs 1,535
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (896 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    896 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.
  • 31.1% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (31 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    31 W vs 45 W
  • 31.1% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (31 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    31 W vs 45 W
  • 71.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (737 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    737 vs 2,558
  • 65.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,929 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,929 vs 11,469
  • 57.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,201 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,201 vs 5,209
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • 13.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.8/ 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 70% of models

    5.8

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    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.
    5.8 vs 6.7
  • 13.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.8/ 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 70% of models

    5.8

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    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.
    5.8 vs 6.7
  • 60% more expensive
    Intel Atom C3958 is more expensive than the average processor (£400 vs £250).
    £400 vs £250
  • 4.7% worse value for money
    Intel Atom C3958 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.96 vs 7.3).
    6.96 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA, RDRAND 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, SHA, RDRAND vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 71.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (737 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    737 vs 2,558
  • 65.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,929 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,929 vs 11,469
  • 57.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,201 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,201 vs 5,209
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 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

9.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
03/04/2018
Lab test · 16-core storage board
Verdict
The Intel Atom C3958 on Gigabyte's MA10-ST0 suits storage builds with 16 SATA ports and draws little power, but trails Xeon D in raw OpenSSL speed.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Atom C3958

  • High core count (16 cores/16 threads) providing excellent multi-threaded performance for its class
  • Low power consumption (31W TDP) suitable for 24/7 server and networking operations
  • Support for Intel QuickAssist Technology (QAT) which significantly accelerates encryption and compression tasks
  • Extensive I/O capabilities, including support for up to 4x10GbE and 20 high-speed I/O lanes
  • High memory capacity support for an Atom chip, up to 256GB DDR4 with ECC (Error-Correcting Code) support
  • Small SoC (System on Chip) footprint reduces motherboard complexity and overall system size

What customers don't like about Intel Atom C3958

  • Lack of Turbo Boost technology, limiting the processor to a fixed maximum clock speed of 2.0GHz
  • Weak single-threaded performance compared to desktop-class processors like the Intel Core series
  • High platform cost for an 'Atom' branded chip, often requiring expensive dedicated server motherboards
  • Not suitable for gaming or heavy desktop productivity due to the 'Goldmont' microarchitecture limitations
  • No integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU or specialized server motherboard with BMC/VGA for video output
  • Higher pricing compared to other C3000 series chips, which can make lower core-count models a better value for some users

Verdict

The Intel Atom C3958 is a high-density server processor from the Denverton family, featuring 16 cores and 16 threads with a consistent base and maximum clock speed of 2.00 GHz. Built on a 14nm lithography, it includes a 16 MB L2 cache, supports up to 256 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2400 ECC memory, and provides integrated 4x10GbE LAN support along with 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes. Its primary advantages are its high core count and integrated Intel QuickAssist Technology (QAT) for accelerated encryption and compression, all within a power-efficient 31W TDP. However, it lacks Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading technologies, suffers from relatively weak single-threaded performance, and is typically sold as a non-socketed BGA component, limiting future upgradeability.

Compare Intel Atom C3958 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 C3958 and other processors

No results found