vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

Bytemark finds another use for Intel's Atom: dedicated servers

by Parm Mann on 22 July 2008, 11:07

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link:

Add to My Vault: x

UK-based hosting company, Bytemark, has found a whole new use for Intel's low-power Atom processor. The chip, commonly used in netbook devices, is being used to power Bytemark's lowest-cost dedicated server.

According to Bytemark, it's "pushing the boundaries of what Intel Atom was intended to do", and it's passing the benefits on to consumers. It states that Atom's low-power footprint results in savings for Bytemark, which it can then pass on to consumers in the form of cheaper dedicated servers.

An Atom-based server, pictured above, is available at an annual cost of £495 with no setup fee. The box features a 1.6GHz Atom N230, with 2GiB of RAM and 200GiBs of storage. Bytemark states "its speed will be comparable to that of a really fast Pentium 3 or low-end P4/Pentium, so should be an obvious upgrade from a virtual machine."

At that price, it doesn't seem an entirely bad idea. Atom-based dedicated servers, who'd have thought?

Official product page:

HEXUS Forums :: 7 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
hehe, that motherboard looks like it could get lost in that case ;)
Bytemark are a great company :D

Used them for a few years for hosting and they where spot on

The question is … Is that a better deal than this?..

2.4Ghz Celeron vs 1.6Ghz Atom?.. Which one is going to perform better?

The Celeron server is cheaper, but no mention of Traffic usage on ByteMark though?
Begs the question though, would it be cheaper simply to buy a low end atom system properly and get some decent web hosting?

I mean lets see how much this is costing, 200gigs, 2gigs of ram, and a dirt cheap processor (hell you could get a Pentium D.C. for that money), you could get the lot for under 125 including the case. Sure you might pay a bit over for the first year, but after it'd be cheaper i reckon. Although i guess the upload rate would suffer a bit?
How much do you think it costs to co-locate Whiternoise?

Also where can I get rack mount chassis as cheap as you say?