I'm still not convinced....
Atom = Green Computing
Green Computing = Mini (for Apple)
Hence..
Atom = Mini....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Atom-Based Mac Mini Due in March?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm still not convinced....
Atom = Green Computing
Green Computing = Mini (for Apple)
Hence..
Atom = Mini....
I'm still not convinced....
Atom = Green Computing
Green Computing = Mini (for Apple)
Hence..
Atom = Mini....
naaaah, if you remember.. originally the Mini was for "converters" with BYOMKD thingo. they dont care about greenness
Oh they definitely do now....
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/environment.html
http://www.apple.com/macbook/environment.html
http://www.apple.com/environment/
The Intel Atom consumes a lot less energy than say, a Core 2 Duo...
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/index.htm
Here's a question for all of you: what Atom CPU will Apple use for their new Mac Mini/Apple TV unit? Will it be the Diamondville core Atom 330 CPU with its dual-core design? Or will Apple wait for the Pineview core Atom CPU's due this summer?
Oh they definitely do now....
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/environment.html
http://www.apple.com/macbook/environment.html
http://www.apple.com/environment/
The Intel Atom consumes a lot less energy than say, a Core 2 Duo...
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/index.htm
yes yes yes now it is, but when the mini came out it wasnt.. you said mini = green, which hasnt always been the case. so there hahaha
Agreed 100%. The public already views Apple's offerings as being underpowered and outdated.
Anyone who thinks that the Atom 330 is suitable for a general purpose computer like the Mac Mini is woefully ignorant of just how slow it is. Take a look at these benchmarks of PC video games. The results are in frames per second and include an E8500 for reference:
Not surprisingly, those pathetic (unplayable) gaming results translate into similarly dismal results on anything which involves floating point math and/or moving data. Take a look at how long it takes to encode an MP3 (relative to an E8500):
The difference between 2.5 minutes and 16 minutes is huge!
For those who would continue to claim that "normal consumers" don't play video games or create MP3 files, look at how it takes just doing data compression using WinRAR:
That's pathetic.
Hopefully, this will put to bed the silly notion that Apple would use the Atom 330 in an updated Mini. It's about as likely as Ford using grocery cart wheels on the next update to the F150 pickup truck.
yes yes yes now it is, but when the mini came out it wasnt.. you said mini = green, which hasnt always been the case. so there hahaha
Agreed, but then again, Apple set the trend with these "Mini" computers and now everyone is finally following, but are using the Atom instead not only for lower costs but also lower power consumption.
The previous "green" computers had that VIA processors or the like which were way too week, especially compared to the Mini's real Intel Core processors.
I guess we'll know by March!
Atom would really suck. Even considering the Macbook Air, I don't think Apple would stoop that low...
But whatever, I wish they'd hurry up and do something. I'm waiting to buy one, but there's no way I'm buying technology from 2 years ago, certainly not at (approximately) the same price as it was 2 years ago. Put us out of our misery so those of us after a small secondary Mac can decide between a new Mac Mini or a hackintosh in a Shuttle case or something.
Most of the time the secrecy about releases is cool, and the surprises are fun. But 534 days without so much as a peep out of them on the issue, is taking the p*ss. Do something, Apple, even if it's axing the product line. At least people will know where they stand.
But whatever, I wish they'd hurry up and do something. I'm waiting to buy one, but there's no way I'm buying technology from 2 years ago, certainly not at (approximately) the same price as it was 2 years ago. Put us out of our misery so those of us after a small secondary Mac can decide between a new Mac Mini or a hackintosh in a Shuttle case or something.
Most of the time the secrecy about releases is cool, and the surprises are fun. But 534 days without so much as a peep out of them on the issue, is taking the p*ss. Do something, Apple, even if it's axing the product line. At least people will know where they stand.
Actually, don't be surprised, if they use it in the Mini, Apple "updates" and "lowers the cost" of the MacBook Air by putting the Ion chipset and Atom in that form factor as well.
At least that should get the price down on that unit...
Did you even look at the benchmarks that I just provided?
You might as well predict that Apple is going to use a Zilog Z80 and a 5.25" floppy drive. That makes just as much sense.
Unfair benchmarks
Those are not fair tests. The article you got them from is comparing the Atom with an intel GMA950 graphics chip to a 3.16 Core 2 Duo chip with an NVidia 7800GT:http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/D945GCLF2_atom_330/. Of course the onboard graphics gets an awful score, it's worse than the one in the current Mini. The new one will be using a GeForce 9400M, probably, and the scores will be far in excess of the atom ones seen there.
The MP3 encoding tests are closer to the mark, but an Ion platform will be faster as it will have faster RAM, etc.
Those are not fair tests. The article you got them from is comparing the Atom with an intel GMA950 graphics chip to a 3.16 Core 2 Duo chip with an NVidia 7800GT:http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/D945GCLF2_atom_330/. Of course the onboard graphics gets an awful score, it's worse than the one in the current Mini. The new one will be using a GeForce 9400M, probably, and the scores will be far in excess of the atom ones seen there.
The MP3 encoding tests are closer to the mark, but an Ion platform will be faster as it will have faster RAM, etc.
You can't judge benchmarks when graphics cards are different
If they both used the same GPU, you'd have a case, but they don't
(Besides, games are usually a terrible way to benchmark CPU power)
It would depend on the game and what resolution and settings were being used. At any rate, the other two benchmarks showed the same results-Atom lagging far, far behind whatever that other CPU was.
Not that I'd pick a Z-80 over an Atom
No, because your benchmarks seem contradictory.
Your post essentially proves that Macs are woefully inadequate for high-end gaming rigs.
I think we can all agree on that...
It would depend on the game and what resolution and settings were being used. At any rate, the other two benchmarks showed the same results-Atom lagging far, far behind whatever that other CPU was.
Not that I'd pick a Z-80 over an Atom
If they gave me the resolution and settings used (you'd have to go to 800x600 or 1024x760 with everything at a minimum) to get the CPU power to matter a whole lot. And the Intel GMA integrated graphics is one of the worst in the history of integrated GPU's, so it's not really a fair comparison. A 5 year old 6600 would crush it.
based on the quote in one of the other threads about low end iphones and netwooks it sounds like apple would not want to put a netbook cpu in a desktop computer. It wouldn't be "the kind of experience people want."
"We're watching that space, but from our pov the products are based on hardware that's much less powerful, software technology that's not good, cramped displays. We don't think that people are going to be pleased with those type of products. It's a category we watch, we have some ideas here, but we think the products there now are inferior and won't provide the kind of experience people want."
"We're watching that space, but from our pov the products are based on hardware that's much less powerful, software technology that's not good, cramped displays. We don't think that people are going to be pleased with those type of products. It's a category we watch, we have some ideas here, but we think the products there now are inferior and won't provide the kind of experience people want."
since it's comparing a intel950 against a nvidia 7800 gt the 3d tests are worthless to begin with
2. they gave the desktop cpu some high rated overclocked memory (up to 1131mhz) while the atom was running with 667mhz memory
3. keeping the power usage of the normal cpu compared to an atom in mind the Atom dual is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be
4. guess how those graphs would like like comparing the 3,1 ghz desktop cpu including 7800gt with the current apple notebooks for 1500 dollars or more: it would be equally a slaugtherhouse
Ok, I'd buy that except for the WinRAR and Lame MP3 encoding tests which prove his point anyway. Atom sucks PERIOD and any Apple computer that uses it other than something like a phone is going to suck too. Putting one of those in a Mini would be its final death blow for CERTAIN. It wouldn't even be a great choice for AppleTV (the thing needs to be capable of 1080P in the future, even if their iTunes rentals stay at 720P for the home enthusiast that wants to put all their Blu-Ray on a few 2TB drives in then next year or two.
The nVidia Ion chipset is capable of 1080p, though.
I think the Atom will definitely end up in the next version of AppleTV. My only gripe of the AppleTV is that it runs way too hot...
I like most on this post was horrified at the thought of an Atom in a mac mini. But if you think of it as a mac nano (apple will not do nettop) then it sounds more appealing if cheaper. NVIDIA are suggesting RRP of $400 for this ION platform - way too expensive for apple TV. I will be waiting for mac mini with quad/dual core with 9400 chip set. And maybe ARM based apple TV (not that interested how much power it uses) small, quiet and cool sounds good.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/10/review_desktop_pc_shuttle_x27d/page3.html
This is a comparison between 3 Atom 330 1.6GHz systems with 1 GB RAM each but different chip sets and a Core 2 Duo 2.13Ghz with 2Gb RAM. All had same 533Mhz RAM and i945 GPU.
It benchmarks at 29 - 39% of the CPU power of the Intel and around 50% GPU performance across the board.
The article also mentions how useless the system is as a media centre as it can't handle video very well and even goes so far as to compare it's form over function with the G4 Cube!
The expression, "steaming pile of bum rubbish" comes to mind!
This is a comparison between 3 Atom 330 1.6GHz systems with 1 GB RAM each but different chip sets and a Core 2 Duo 2.13Ghz with 2Gb RAM. All had same 533Mhz RAM and i945 GPU.
It benchmarks at 29 - 39% of the CPU power of the Intel and around 50% GPU performance across the board.
The article also mentions how useless the system is as a media centre as it can't handle video very well and even goes so far as to compare it's form over function with the G4 Cube!
The expression, "steaming pile of bum rubbish" comes to mind!
No, because your benchmarks seem contradictory.
Your post essentially proves that Macs are woefully inadequate for high-end gaming rigs.
I think we can all agree on that...
Since when is creating a WinRAR file or converting audio to MP3 "high-end gaming"?
yup that is pathetic, even with the fact that the Atom only has the GMA.. for the raw CPU crunching tasks such as WinRar and mp3 conversions it is really pathetic. i would NEVER buy a mini that had an Atom.
yes apple were pretty much the starters of the mini trend!! like everything else i guess..
compared to some of the other "mini" computers from the PC market, the mini still does surprisingly well even though it is way outdated. i hope that apple can introduce a Mini that takes the top end of this market, performing well and yet keeping a cheap introductory price. i think a cheap Atom mini for the low end and a nice 2.4ghz/2.8ghz (maybe?) would be very nice for the high end.. make it something that will perform yet still fit into a tight spot.. it would be very good for server farms, most households and still be fairly cheap.
but this is apple i guess, so that isnt going to happen.. *sigh*
yes the
TV does run a bit too hot, and my only gripe is that you cant check your emails/use your web browsers/watch 1080p (or higher) videos on it!! thats why i wanted a friggen mini..and a good one at that!its not, its everyday simple tasks. noway am i going to purchase it if its going to take 16minutes when i could get it done in 5 on my already 2 year old computers.