Intel Atom-Based Mac Mini Due in March?

[Jeonat]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I think an Atom-based mac mini would be great, maybe at $500 or less but not nearer the $700 mark though.

IMO this could be a whole new line for Apple. There has been moderate success of these netbook type things, and tiny desktops using Atom chips.

My view is that Apple needs to diversify and offer a greater range of products, especially since folks are looking to cut costs. Atom is not an amazing processor, but you wouldn't expect it to be at that price point. But I ran Vista on one with 2Gb RAM and it worked very well, and I think it's fine for what many people want computers for - Internet, e-mail, iTunes, word processing etc.

Other mfr's are making lots of money from this target group - it could be an opportunity to bring OS X to many more people?

j

 

[cv01]

Time for Apple to show their real greediness and cancel the mini completely... who wants an Atom in that thing? My old G4 will be faster than that...

 

[albusseverus]

Nooooooooo !

Not even for a Mac Nano (whatever the h*ll that might be). What price would such a device need to be for people to buy it? $200 ??

 

[cv01]

The Atom is a 32bit chipset.

The Nvidia Ion platform is helping netbook maker, Intel, period.

Snow Leopard and forward are targeting 64 bit only platforms, including the iPhones which ARM Cortex-A9 is 64 bit.

Atom 330 supports Intel® 64 Architecture:
http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupId=35641

More on that here: http://developer.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm

 

[j26]

Well, true for the single core Atom. I've used the Dell Atom Based hackintosh. And it's slow. Frustratingly so. Yes, I'm aware there's a latency in writes to their solid state hard drive and that may have exacerbated the sluggishness -

It runs fine with a hdd rather than ssd.

 

[mcnallym]

Would certainly make a good AppleTV update. I see that Apple have removed the specs for the AppleTV and just say an Intel Processor and don't mention what the graphics are.

Would certainly be good enough for 1080p playback if matched to the 9400m chipset, certainly good enough for iTunes HD content anyway.

Such a base would probably also be useful as a start for the rumoured Apple iTunes Server as well if fitted with eSATA ports etc.

 

[OllyW]

Actually not.
As a previous poster stated, the Atom Processor can't even play 1080p properly on a big screen.

But the previous poster was wrong.

NVIDIA were demonstrating their Ion platform for the Atom processor at CES. I've already posted the link to the video, but here it is again. Pay attention at 1:47.

It looks like it could be an ideal solution for 1080P in the TV.

 

[MarkMS]

Atom? Are you serious?

 

[Evangelion]

It's not for either. The point of the Apple TV is to play video.

YOU CAN'T PLAY 1080P VIDEO ON A FRICKING ATOM.

Yes you can, if you have a GPU that can handle it. NVIDIA's Ion-platform for Atom should be able to handle it. Or do you think that current AppleTV has some uber-processor that blows the Atom away? Current AppleTV has a 1GHz Pentium-M running on an underclocked bus.

that said: While I don't think mini will get an Atom (it would make more sense to put it in the AppleTV instead), I'm not terribly against the idea either. Atom is a fine CPU. True, it's not a powerhouse, but Mac mini is not supposed to be a powerhouse.

I can easily see Mac mini running on NVIDIAs Ion-platform easily outperforming current Mac Mini in several benchmarks. CPU might be slower, but the GPU would be a lot more capable. And for most tasks, Intel Atom is "fast enough". If you want even faster performance, Apple would he happy to sell you more epxensive machine to suit your needs.

 

[colmaclean]

If this is true, sounds to me like an ideal showcase for 10.6's Grand Central - sharing out processor tasks to GPU...

 

[Wolfpup]

Please tell me you're joking! A C2D can't power any respectable game system. The XBOX 360 has multiple workstation class PowerPC processors, and the PS3 has 7 3.2 GHz multicore processors in it. There is no way that a Core2Duo can power a game system that is on par with the two aformentioned game systems.

Don

Woooow. The CPUs used in the 360 and Playstation 3 aren't remotely on par with a Pentium 3 or 4 of somewhat comparable clock speed, let alone a Core 2. They're very primitive, lacking features that have been standard since the Pentium Pro in 1995 (or the PowerPC equivalents). The closest CPU Intel makes to those suckers is Atom.

One of the PPEs in the 360, when running at 3.2GHz, only has about double the performance of the original Xbox's 733Mhz Celeron for game code, which is pathetic. Now added all up, and with clever programming, that's still decent, but in no way are they competitive with anything Intel was doing when those systems launched, let alone their modern chips. Even a slow Core 2 eats those things alive.

The one area they can really excel is very predictable work loads-stuff like decoding and encoding video (and even then that just puts them on par with modern CPUs for the most part).

EDIT: And besides that, those aren't "workstation class" CPUs at all. "Workstation class" would be a high end CPU from Intel or AMD, either x86 or Itanium.

 

[depulse]

If OpenCL is as powerful as Apple implies, the new Atom-based Mini will probably be sold as "5 times faster than the previous Mini". The 9400M will be an active part of the number crunching, how well this works in practise only Apple know today. Will the shared RAM of the 9400M be the bottleneck?

Look at what Apple did with the Macbook, they put a slower processor than the previous older MB in the entry level model. If they just were a bit less secretive and told us straight that the GPU will provide "so and so much additonal computing power" that in fact the new MBs are much more powerful under Snow Leopard once it is released.

But Apple is Apple , I think the CIA is more transparent.

 

[djellison]

People who have gotten OS X working on Atom-powered netbooks say it's really slow.

No they don't. Check Youtube - you'll see how 'really slow' it is ( clue here, it isn't) I don't on my Samsung NC10. Safari loaded faster and was as smooth as my 2.2Ghz MBP.

Now - I agrees - $400+ for an Atom based desktop PC is stupid beyond words - but I've given up expecting sensible design a spec choices from Cupertino.

 

[Dmac77]

Woooow. The CPUs used in the 360 and Playstation 3 aren't remotely on par with a Pentium 3 or 4 of somewhat comparable clock speed, let alone a Core 2. They're very primitive, lacking features that have been standard since the Pentium Pro in 1995 (or the PowerPC equivalents). The closest CPU Intel makes to those suckers is Atom.

One of the PPEs in the 360, when running at 3.2GHz, only has about double the performance of the original Xbox's 733Mhz Celeron for game code, which is pathetic. Now added all up, and with clever programming, that's still decent, but in no way are they competitive with anything Intel was doing when those systems launched, let alone their modern chips. Even a slow Core 2 eats those things alive.

The one area they can really excel is very predictable work loads-stuff like decoding and encoding video (and even then that just puts them on par with modern CPUs for the most part).

EDIT: And besides that, those aren't "workstation class" CPUs at all. "Workstation class" would be a high end CPU from Intel or AMD, either x86 or Itanium.

The Core2Duo's are better at normal computing tasks. But I bet you, that if a PS3 with Core2Duo processors went up against a Normal PS3 playing a game with advanced AI, and complex graphics, the normal PS3 would preform better. While the processors in gaming systems maybe rudimentry compared to C2D's for normal computing tasks, they can crunch massive ammounts of data, and can habdle games better then a C2D. Different processors are meant for different activities.

Don

 

[macbookfan]

It's not for either. The point of the Apple TV is to play video.

YOU CAN'T PLAY 1080P VIDEO ON A FRICKING ATOM.

So anything that happens to the Apple TV will NOT be as sucktacular as an Atom.

if it's a dual core with a 9400m to video accelerate it then yes it will play 1080p.

 

[Evangelion]

Woooow. The CPUs used in the 360 and Playstation 3 aren't remotely on par with a Pentium 3 or 4 of somewhat comparable clock speed, let alone a Core 2. They're very primitive, lacking features that have been standard since the Pentium Pro in 1995 (or the PowerPC equivalents). The closest CPU Intel makes to those suckers is Atom.

I would hardly call the Xenon or Cell as "primitive". Yes, they lack many features found in (for example) C2D. But that because they are custom-built CPU's, dedicated for very specific tasks, as opposed of being general purpose CPU's like we have in our computers. They don't need those particular features.

One of the PPEs in the 360, when running at 3.2GHz, only has about double the performance of the original Xbox's 733Mhz Celeron for game code, which is pathetic.

Source please?

Even a slow Core 2 eats those things alive.

depends on what you want to do with the chip. Run an OS and do some word-processing? C2D all the way! Want to do stream lots of data or do floating-point calculations (like consoles are tasked to do)? Cell will massacre C2D.

 

[christian_k]

You need more than just the OS (+browser and mail).

A big selling point for the Mac is iLife. The new anti shage feature in iLife09 takes a while even on a C2D, can you imagine that on the Atom? Maybe even with HD content? How long would it take to import from an AVCHD camcorder? These _are_ consumer applications!

How do you sell a computer that is hardly half as fast as the previous model?

Christian

Yet in the real world the single core Atom runs OSX just fine.
Using a dual core, it should get be better for people with light to mid level computing tasks, especially when Snow Leopard comes out.

 

[DoFoT9]

You need more than just the OS (+browser and mail).

A big selling point for the Mac is iLife. The new anti shage feature in iLife09 takes a while even on a C2D, can you imagine that on the Atom? Maybe even with HD content? How long would it take to import from an AVCHD camcorder? These _are_ consumer applications!

How do you sell a computer that is hardly half as fast as the previous model?

Christian

you cant, you simply cant (Cleatus voice).

 

[fmaxwell]

Mac is the point, not Mini

I didn't buy a Mac Mini because I wanted a tiny computer. I bought one because I wanted a desktop Mac. I did not want to bend over and shell out an obscene amount of money for an all-in-one iMac or a more-processing-power-than-God Mac Pro. I wanted to be able to upgrade the display (or replace it if it failed) without scrapping the entire computer.

What I want in a mini is:

1. Dual DVI to support multiple monitors
2. More modern graphics to support modern video games
3. eSATA port to support large, fast, external drives
4. Faster dual or quad core CPU
5. Ability to expand addressable RAM to 8GB or more
6. Gigabit Ethernet

If they emasculate the Mac Mini with an Atom CPU, I'll probably build a Hackintosh or even return to the Windows world. I'm not going to be raped to the tune of two grand for an iMac with a 24" display, no internal expansion capability, an undersized hard drive, and an outdated CPU.

 

[Winni]

Once again... The joys of being totally dependent on what ONE hardware manufacturer intends to offer. Or not to offer.

Guess why Apple completely lost the business market to the "PC" industry.

If they changed their dumb-witted license restrictions, none of this would matter and we could all just customize our machines and still use OS X and other Apple software. But no, we also have to suck up their 1960s IBM mainframe hardware lock-in business model.

It. Sucks.

 

[Evangelion]

You need more than just the OS (+browser and mail).

Not everyone does.

How do you sell a computer that is hardly half as fast as the previous model?

By giving it other features that hte previous model lacks? There are more to computers besides how "fast" they are.

Besides, the current Mini has crap GPU, Ion-equipped Mini would have a GPU that would be about order of magnitude faster.

 

[Hattig]

Yes you can, if you have a GPU that can handle it. NVIDIA's Ion-platform for Atom should be able to handle it. Or do you think that current AppleTV has some uber-processor that blows the Atom away? Current AppleTV has a 1GHz Pentium-M running on an underclocked bus.

that said: While I don't think mini will get an Atom (it would make more sense to put it in the AppleTV instead), I'm not terribly against the idea either. Atom is a fine CPU. True, it's not a powerhouse, but Mac mini is not supposed to be a powerhouse.

I can easily see Mac mini running on NVIDIAs Ion-platform easily outperforming current Mac Mini in several benchmarks. CPU might be slower, but the GPU would be a lot more capable. And for most tasks, Intel Atom is "fast enough". If you want even faster performance, Apple would he happy to sell you more epxensive machine to suit your needs.

Yeah, Apple's lineup:

$599 Mac Mini (slow-arse edition, slower than 2006 Mac Mini)
$799 Mac Mini (slow-arse edition with more RAM and HD)
$3000 Mac Pro

Brilliant. I like how they cover all the bases with this brilliant plan.

How about:

$399 Mac Mini (1.6GHz Atom 330, 9400M, 1GB, 80GB)
$599 Mac Mini (2GHz Core 2 Duo, 9400M, 2GB, 160GB)
$799 Mac Mini (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 9400M, 2GB, 320GB)

Although I think they should be $100 cheaper than that, across the board.

If you haven't got the idea yet, I think the idea of putting the Atom into the Mac Mini is terrible.

 

[Full of Win]

I'm not going to be raped to the tune of two grand for an iMac with a 24" display, no internal expansion capability, an undersized hard drive, and an outdated CPU.

You really are a newbie , aren't you?

 

[DoFoT9]

Yeah, Apple's lineup:

$599 Mac Mini (slow-arse edition, slower than 2006 Mac Mini)
$799 Mac Mini (slow-arse edition with more RAM and HD)
$3000 Mac Pro

Brilliant. I like how they cover all the bases with this brilliant plan.

How about:

$399 Mac Mini (1.6GHz Atom 330, 9400M, 1GB, 80GB)
$599 Mac Mini (2GHz Core 2 Duo, 9400M, 2GB, 160GB)
$799 Mac Mini (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 9400M, 2GB, 320GB)

Although I think they should be $100 cheaper than that, across the board.

If you haven't got the idea yet, I think the idea of putting the Atom into the Mac Mini is terrible.

i am liking the ones you prefer one atom is enough, id go the top model.

 

[Evangelion]

Yeah, Apple's lineup:

$599 Mac Mini (slow-arse edition, slower than 2006 Mac Mini)

What makes you think that it would be slower? Do you think that the CPU is the only thing that determines the performance of the system? Using the Ion, the mini would have a lot faster GPU than it currently does. And the CPU-performance is acceptable for most tasks, especially with the newer Atom-models Intel will soon release.

$799 Mac Mini (slow-arse edition with more RAM and HD)
$3000 Mac Pro

Are you forgetting the iMac?

How about:

$399 Mac Mini (1.6GHz Atom 330, 9400M, 1GB, 80GB)
$599 Mac Mini (2GHz Core 2 Duo, 9400M, 2GB, 160GB)
$799 Mac Mini (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 9400M, 2GB, 320GB)

I don't see them using incompatible MoBo inside one model. that would be stupid.

If you haven't got the idea yet, I think the idea of putting the Atom into the Mac Mini is terrible.

I don't really see it happening either, but if they do put it in there, I don't see it as an end of the world many here seem to do.