It seems like an artificial performance limitation to keep the C3000 series out of memory bandwidth intensive workloads so potential customers need to utilize higher margin parts. It could also be the second memory channel was the victim of cost cutting to keep the price down. Maybe a little of both and other unknown factors too.
Another factor might be that the target markets are markets where cost will keep memory single channel anyway. Recall earlier articles on AMD making devices with dual channel controllers that weren't utilized by their customers. If you know that your customers are going to target cheap, make cheap.
That's certainly possible. On the consumer side, the Bay Trail Atom was capable of dual channel and I don't think there were many OEMs (none I can think of off the top of my head) that opted to actually give the chip more than a single channel.
Memory bandwidth will only be a limiting factor in number streaming and crunching. The atom is not designed for that.
Them are logic cores. They could do some processing, for example video streaming and such, but those will not be limited by the memory, as video is streamed from storage.
Neither bandwidth, much less actual performance scale anywhere nearly linear by the addition of additional MC channels. Quad channel memory will only get you around 50% extra compared to single channel, rather than 400% you might expect.
In short, the the single channel MC will not be detrimental 99% of the time, in the market niche this product is aiming for. It would have been wasted die space and power for no tangible benefit.
That's actually a good point. ZFS is very memory intensive. That said, the C3338 only has two cores, not 16. Perhaps the 16 core version will feature more than a single channel memory controller, but I doubt it.
Four integrated 10GbE!? Looking forward to seeing designs that implement this. Been waiting on a NAS with 10GbE because prices are too high. Maybe integration will bring them down.
Can anyone explain how well are these extra cores utilized for using the NAS as a media server?
I currently have an i7 6850K (6 core/12T) in my Media Server because Plex would still buffer some times during transcoding on the previous CPU with high bandwidth Media (mostly 1080p rips). This new CPU is much better for streaming stuff to my Chromecast on TV but I've a feeling my solution of throwing more money and buying the faster processor for Plex alone wasn't the most optimal solution.
What kind of Nas/media servers do you guys use for streaming stuff to TV via Chromecast and does everyone use Plex for this?
As long as you're not doing 4K transcoding I would imagine these would be ok, so long as you account one core for each stream that's transcoding. But I wouldn't trust it completely to never slow down. These aren't focused on single threaded performance but rather being able to serve multiple simultaneous connections that don't use much CPU.
I find the pain is transcoding x265 to x264, because Chromecast only supports the latter. But selecting 'fast decode' when encoding to x265 fixed that for me.
Also, if you're only using one or two streams at a time, a Celeron/Pentium/i3 level Core processor should be more than enough rathar than having that beast wasted in a media server.
Saturating 10Gbe links is not easy. If this kind of box is used as a router / vpn brige whatnot, having multiple cores handling the multiple network interfaces is a good thing. I'd also guess there is HW-support in the CPU for SHA256 and maybe other algorithms as well.
Do the 10GbE ports need something else that is expensive to be used, or at $37 is this finally the chip that makes a consumer priced 10GbE router/switch possible?
The $37 chip is the Atom C3338 and its integrated LAN is either 4x1 or 4x2.5 GbE. While not offering the speed of 10GbE, at least 2.5GbE is a big upgrade over 1GbE and has the potential to be quite cheap in comparison to the 10GbE.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
Back to Article
Azurael - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
16 cores and a single channel memory controller???BrokenCrayons - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
It seems like an artificial performance limitation to keep the C3000 series out of memory bandwidth intensive workloads so potential customers need to utilize higher margin parts. It could also be the second memory channel was the victim of cost cutting to keep the price down. Maybe a little of both and other unknown factors too.Colin1497 - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
Another factor might be that the target markets are markets where cost will keep memory single channel anyway. Recall earlier articles on AMD making devices with dual channel controllers that weren't utilized by their customers. If you know that your customers are going to target cheap, make cheap.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
That's certainly possible. On the consumer side, the Bay Trail Atom was capable of dual channel and I don't think there were many OEMs (none I can think of off the top of my head) that opted to actually give the chip more than a single channel.ddriver - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
Memory bandwidth will only be a limiting factor in number streaming and crunching. The atom is not designed for that.Them are logic cores. They could do some processing, for example video streaming and such, but those will not be limited by the memory, as video is streamed from storage.
Neither bandwidth, much less actual performance scale anywhere nearly linear by the addition of additional MC channels. Quad channel memory will only get you around 50% extra compared to single channel, rather than 400% you might expect.
In short, the the single channel MC will not be detrimental 99% of the time, in the market niche this product is aiming for. It would have been wasted die space and power for no tangible benefit.
evanrich - Saturday, February 25, 2017 - link
Yeah because everyone's NAS/switch/router/firewall needs Octachannel memory andd DDR9 support right?andychow - Sunday, February 26, 2017 - link
That's actually a good point. ZFS is very memory intensive. That said, the C3338 only has two cores, not 16. Perhaps the 16 core version will feature more than a single channel memory controller, but I doubt it.pattycake0147 - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
Four integrated 10GbE!? Looking forward to seeing designs that implement this. Been waiting on a NAS with 10GbE because prices are too high. Maybe integration will bring them down.milkywayer - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
Can anyone explain how well are these extra cores utilized for using the NAS as a media server?I currently have an i7 6850K (6 core/12T) in my Media Server because Plex would still buffer some times during transcoding on the previous CPU with high bandwidth Media (mostly 1080p rips). This new CPU is much better for streaming stuff to my Chromecast on TV but I've a feeling my solution of throwing more money and buying the faster processor for Plex alone wasn't the most optimal solution.
What kind of Nas/media servers do you guys use for streaming stuff to TV via Chromecast and does everyone use Plex for this?
mjeffer - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
As long as you're not doing 4K transcoding I would imagine these would be ok, so long as you account one core for each stream that's transcoding. But I wouldn't trust it completely to never slow down. These aren't focused on single threaded performance but rather being able to serve multiple simultaneous connections that don't use much CPU.Meteor2 - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
I find the pain is transcoding x265 to x264, because Chromecast only supports the latter. But selecting 'fast decode' when encoding to x265 fixed that for me.mjeffer - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
Also, if you're only using one or two streams at a time, a Celeron/Pentium/i3 level Core processor should be more than enough rathar than having that beast wasted in a media server.zepi - Monday, February 27, 2017 - link
Saturating 10Gbe links is not easy. If this kind of box is used as a router / vpn brige whatnot, having multiple cores handling the multiple network interfaces is a good thing. I'd also guess there is HW-support in the CPU for SHA256 and maybe other algorithms as well.lefty2 - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
I wonder what hidden flaw will surface 18 months laterMr Perfect - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
Ha!Seriously though, did they say if the C3000 doesn't have the bug that killed the C2000?
DanNeely - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
Do the 10GbE ports need something else that is expensive to be used, or at $37 is this finally the chip that makes a consumer priced 10GbE router/switch possible?A5 - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
I would assume that a 10GbE PHY is still required, which probably costs more than this chip.10101010 - Friday, February 24, 2017 - link
The $37 chip is the Atom C3338 and its integrated LAN is either 4x1 or 4x2.5 GbE. While not offering the speed of 10GbE, at least 2.5GbE is a big upgrade over 1GbE and has the potential to be quite cheap in comparison to the 10GbE.iwod - Saturday, February 25, 2017 - link
Where is all these $37 number coming from? The article state $27.Vlad_Da_Great - Saturday, February 25, 2017 - link
It comes from the initial scalping.edzieba - Thursday, February 23, 2017 - link
It's like a teeny weenie Xeon Phi!0ldman79 - Friday, February 24, 2017 - link
Agreed.Atom are often found in switches and routers, you need responsiveness, low latency, load bearing, not necessarily heavy lifting.
Several cores simultaneously doing a lot of little work.
Install Mikrotik RouterOS on one of these with a decent multi-port Ethernet card and give it hell.
0ldman79 - Friday, February 24, 2017 - link
Agreed.Atom are often found in switches and routers, you need responsiveness, low latency, load bearing, not necessarily heavy lifting.
Several cores simultaneously doing a lot of little work.
Install Mikrotik RouterOS on one of these with a decent multi-port Ethernet card and give it hell.
SpetsnazAntiVIP - Friday, February 24, 2017 - link
The 10gbe makes this very compelling. I may be swapping my NAS hardware out for this.iwod - Saturday, February 25, 2017 - link
Damn it!. Why 4x 2.5GbE and not 2 x 5 GbE.speculatrix - Tuesday, July 4, 2017 - link
I just discovered that Supermicro have a Denverton-based motherboard.https://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/at...
can't find a price yet