Intel Atom-Based Mac Mini Due in March?

[albusseverus]

Wow, impressive.

But, it is on Windows 7, and looks like the encoding software for vids is their own (nVidia's). So it's a great platform, as long as the OS and programs are optimized for it.

I can see the Mini going this route, if they DO NOT come out with an update in March, as an Atom-based Mini is going to REQUTIRE Snow Leopard to run at a reasonable level, not to mention possibly slightly faster Atoms in the Fall...

I've heard Atoms just aren't in the running for multimedia (sorry I haven't got any references, maybe someone out there can find them). Good for netbooks, but not suitable for MacBook Air or Mini.

Look at it's place in Apple's line up. The Mini is not a 'desirable' machine. It's an 'adequate' machine. And I don't see Atom as being 'adequate' for anything 'bigger' than a netbook.

I'd love a quad core Mini (and frankly, that should be the minimum for 2009 Apple releases), but if it's a choice between an Atom and even a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo with GeForce 9400M, I know which I'd be buying.

This is one case where I'd rather Apple stick with CPUs they're already using than something new. And let's face it, quad cores and i7s couldn't look further away from Apple's mind at the moment.

 

[gkarris]

If anybody still doubts what the Ion platform (and not necessarily just the Atom processor) can do, you should really watch this demonstration that Nvidia did with Windows 7.

I've heard Atoms just aren't in the running for multimedia (sorry I haven't got any references, maybe someone out there can find them). Good for netbooks, but not suitable for MacBook Air or Mini.

Sooo, you didn't click on the link above, did you?

Atom + Ion - no problems with rendering video, playing a 1080p movie, and playing a 720p game, all at the same time...

 

[DoFoT9]

Sooo, you didn't click on the link above, did you?

Atom + Ion - no problems with rendering video, playing a 1080p movie, and playing a 720p game, all at the same time...

did you click the link above?

"As Drew Henry rightfully stated, you won't see an Intel based Atom and chipset netbook doing anything like this. "

pretty sure that means that it cant do those at the same time.... that video would have been using probably a high end quad core for machine with the Ion nVida thingo, no wonder it didnt skip.

 

[marbles]

At this stage,..

...anything would do!,..

....just as long as it's an update to the Mini.

 

[CyberBob859]

did you click the link above?

"As Drew Henry rightfully stated, you won't see an Intel based Atom and chipset netbook doing anything like this. "

pretty sure that means that it cant do those at the same time.... that video would have been using probably a high end quad core for machine with the Ion nVida thingo, no wonder it didnt skip.

I emphasized the quote. What I believe Drew Henry was trying to say is that an Intel graphics chipset in conjunction with the Intel Atom won't be able to do the things demonstrated in the video.

However, an Nvidia 9400 graphics chipset PLUS the Intel Atom (and specifically, the Atom N330) can. That's what the Ion platform is - Intel Atom N330 plus Nvidia 9400 GPU.

That video clearly shows that the ION PLATFORM specifically (and not just the Intel Atom processor) has enough power to do a lot of things that consumers would want. It would be especially attractive in PC's (or a Mac) that costs < $500, and still earn some profit margin for the company making it.

This leads me to think that the original Tom's Hardware rumor is plausible. Not that it will come true, but technically it can be made to work.

 

[iMacmatician]

I can see the Mini going this route, if they DO NOT come out with an update in March, as an Atom-based Mini is going to REQUTIRE Snow Leopard to run at a reasonable level, not to mention possibly slightly faster Atoms in the Fall...

So will this be the incentive to upgrade to Snow Leopard? Atom Mac minis and Gainestown Mac Pros released before Snow Leopard?

 

[albusseverus]

Sooo, you didn't click on the link above, did you?

Atom + Ion - no problems with rendering video, playing a 1080p movie, and playing a 720p game, all at the same time...

Upon clicking 'proof positive' link, I find

• jerky 1080p playback, nothing else running at the same time
• transcoding a video (not time-taken quoted, so it could take forever) plus sloppy 720p game, no frame rate quoted, "mainstream gaming settings", i.e. lowest possible
• not a product, but a demo, no hardware shown
• custom software
• and Ion turns out to be Atom + GeForce 9400M

Not bad if you could squeeze it into a netbook, (which I doubt or it would be on show), but hardly suitable for a desktop.

I'll stick with Apple's current minimum - Core 2 Duo with GeForce 9400M, thanks all the same - and stop wasting people's time.

 

[gkarris]

^^^ maybe you should pay attention.

All the stuff you mentioned was with other things running.

You're basing your views on a choppy web video?

 

[DoFoT9]

^^^ maybe you should pay attention.

All the stuff you mentioned was with other things running.

You're basing your views on a choppy web video?

i think he might be.

i would like to see it in person before i make any more assumptions. im starting to get turned..

 

[dohardthings]

http://computerworld.com/action/art...rticleId=9127828&taxonomyId=162&intsrc=kc_top

Third paragraph "unnamed pc maker" mac mini or a net book?

 

[wizard]

Mac Micro but not likely a Mini.

http://computerworld.com/action/art...rticleId=9127828&taxonomyId=162&intsrc=kc_top

Third paragraph "unnamed pc maker" mac mini or a net book?

I doubt it would be a Mini replacement but rather a new low end model with Mini being transformed into a more capably desktop. I'm calling it Mac Micro.

Micro would be a dual purpose platform functioning as a Apple TV, as a media center PC or very low end desktop. I don't see this as a product that Apple would market to mainstream users. On the other hand I can see it being a hot seller.


Dave

 

[CyberBob859]

http://computerworld.com/action/art...rticleId=9127828&taxonomyId=162&intsrc=kc_top

Third paragraph "unnamed pc maker" mac mini or a net book?

Good article. Especially the PC economics.

 

[polaris20]

I doubt it would be a Mini replacement but rather a new low end model with Mini being transformed into a more capably desktop. I'm calling it Mac Micro.

Micro would be a dual purpose platform functioning as a Apple TV, as a media center PC or very low end desktop. I don't see this as a product that Apple would market to mainstream users. On the other hand I can see it being a hot seller.


Dave

No dude, Mac Nano.

 

[marbles]

http://computerworld.com/action/art...rticleId=9127828&taxonomyId=162&intsrc=kc_top

Third paragraph "unnamed pc maker" mac mini or a net book?

Nice find.

 

[gkarris]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/11/nvidia-shows-off-ion-windows-7-multitasking-confirms-launch-det/

NVIDIA also confirmed that the first Ion-based system would, in fact, be a desktop, and that it'll begin shipping sometime this spring. Unfortunately, there's no word as to who may be manufacturing said desktop, with NVIDIA's Drew Henry only going so far as to say that it'll be "very small" and "affordable."

Well, there you have it...

(more rumors... )

 

[xoggyux]

Why dont we just wait to see before flamming at apple?
I doubt a new version of a mini will be less powerful than a old version, if they are putting atoms in minis probably is because they managed to make it faster than the current mini's processor or they simply going to make a substantial price cut, either way could be good (yeah right and bad, but whatever)
I do however think apple should enter the notebooks market, for school and stuff, i'd preffer to have a netbook (less than $500 of course) just to avoid undersirable scratches in my precious MBP

 

[xoggyux]

Since there is no reason for a downgrade of processor for a desktop-based computer (since power is virtually limitless in home/office environment "[wall outlet]") I was trying to figure out what else could an atom processor be doing inside a mini and i came up with this rubbish idea but within bizarre boundaries possible.
What if mac is adding an atom processor? not replacing the core 2 duo, but adding an extra processor (wouldn't be the first time since new unibody comes with 9400 and 9600 graphics,) of course this would have limited benefits on a desktop computer however the mac mini (not as popular as apple's laptop) could be a excellent candidate to put this theory to test at large scale without risking the laptop market (which so far is been doing great.)
The only thing that the only computers with several processor so far (which i know of) need all processors to be the same, but if apple figured a way to put different GPU to work together (9400/9600) it could be plausible to do the same with CPU, though restarting to switch processors would be a terrible idea. Anyway is a rubbish idea.... just wanted to share it.

 

[wizard]

Like highlighted above a Mac Nano.

Why dont we just wait to see before flamming at apple?
I doubt a new version of a mini will be less powerful than a old version, if they are putting atoms in minis probably is because they managed to make it faster than the current mini's processor or they simply going to make a substantial price cut, either way could be good (yeah right and bad, but whatever)
I do however think apple should enter the notebooks market, for school and stuff, i'd preffer to have a netbook (less than $500 of course) just to avoid undersirable scratches in my precious MBP

Getting excited ahead of time is certainly a mistake as we don't know what will come from Apple. Personally I hope that is a Ion based system is to be on offer that the device would simply be a lower end Mac and not an exact replacement for the Mini. As was suggested above Mac Nano

I do belive there is demand for very low power desktops of reasonable performance. Such a device might not be an optimal productivity workstation but it would accel at a number of tasks. That is applications such as a home server, media server / Apple TV, Internet access device, RV/Boat PC and whatever else justifies an ability to function reasonable well on minimal power.

I just have to wonder what is taking Apple so long to get this out the door. Well not just this but the whole line up of desktops. I have a hardtime beliving they are waiting for Snow Leopard, thus the thought that Apple has new chip tech in the works. That might be some Apple designed hardware or a custom Atom implementation from Intel. That custom chip might have four cores and more cache onboard. It is notable that Intel sees Atom as a way to break into ARMs custom chip market. A Mac Nano has all sorts of potential and we can't concentrate just on what is public. Rather consideration has to be made for what is reasonably possible.


Dave

 

[xoggyux]

yeah, but the only reason i can think of, for a demand of a "med-low-performance" desktop is to save money (I believe power consumption is not a factor in desktop computers, the difference in processor consumption is likely to be a couple of watts 3-5 watts, which is hardly a difference, keep in mind that the simplest of all electronic devices, the lightbulb, consumes 35-60 watts) and apple is not very well know for making big discounts.
Also there are plenty of processors to downgrade to (if their budget is limited by any kind of economic thing going on) such as celeron, or just simple core processors, which in whichever setting you put it, it will out-power atom.

I do would like apple to give it a shot to netbooks, however I have seen people saying they are willing to pay $500-700 for a netbook, and i believe that stupid since for 200-300 more than their estimation they can get a full laptop (white MB starts at $900-999,) therefore around would be the top limit for me $400 (keep in mind that in the $400 marging you can get your hands on an old fashion laptop pc [with vista, but w/e] with dual core, potentially with 2GB-3GB, 200GB HDD and some acceptable GPU [e.g. intel 4500 rather than the intel 950 found in most netbooks]
So if mac can get its hand in a HP Mini/Dell 9 mini, change the case to a more proper mac-like case, get rid of the stupid single core atom and put the new dual core/with nvidia 9400 (ion) and its mighty OS + 16GB+ ssd for $400 and maybe touch-screen for $600 it would be great.

 

[iMacmatician]

I just have to wonder what is taking Apple so long to get this out the door. Well not just this but the whole line up of desktops. I have a hardtime beliving they are waiting for Snow Leopard, thus the thought that Apple has new chip tech in the works. That might be some Apple designed hardware or a custom Atom implementation from Intel.
…
A Mac Nano has all sorts of potential and we can't concentrate just on what is public. Rather consideration has to be made for what is reasonably possible.

Most definitely!

I'm also thinking a "special" 3.0 GHz 65 W quad-core at a $500+ price for the iMac. The worst-case scenario is that Apple was unable to get the 65 W quads into the iMac, and so decided to wait until May/June for the next update, and also decided to bring the Mac mini along for the ride.

That custom chip might have four cores and more cache onboard.

I've tossed that idea around in my head and I can kinda see it happening. Such a chip may come within striking distance of the low-end Core 2 Duos. And if there's quad-core in the Mac mini, then it's almost certain that the iMacs will have quad-core too (they're different chips, but Apple is not likely to downgrade core count).

yeah, but the only reason i can think of, for a demand of a "med-low-performance" desktop is to save money (I believe power consumption is not a factor in desktop computers, the difference in processor consumption is likely to be a couple of watts 3-5 watts, which is hardly a difference, keep in mind that the simplest of all electronic devices, the lightbulb, consumes 35-60 watts)

It's more a heat problem than a power consumption problem.

Also there are plenty of processors to downgrade to (if their budget is limited by any kind of economic thing going on) such as celeron, or just simple core processors, which in whichever setting you put it, it will out-power atom.

There's 3 OEM mobile Core 2 Duos that I'm assuming are cheaper than the 2.27 GHz one. 2.0/2.2 GHz 800FSB and 2.0 GHz 1067FSB (used in MacBooks). So there's room to "downgrade" there.

 

[kabunaru]

All of this Intel processor naming scheme is confusing me. Not too mention Intel has so many different processors. If PowerPC was successful, then we should have stayed with PowerPC. Besides, I think PowerPC processors were more stable and reliable (except some G5s) than Intel processors for the sacrifice of some speed.

 

[wizard]

Somethings are just wrong here.

yeah, but the only reason i can think of, for a demand of a "med-low-performance" desktop is to save money

And saving money isn't important to you on the initial purchase?

In any event the bigger savings comes from power saved especially if the unit is on 24/7.

(I believe power consumption is not a factor in desktop computers, the difference in processor consumption is likely to be a couple of watts 3-5 watts, which is hardly a difference, keep in mind that the simplest of all electronic devices, the lightbulb, consumes 35-60 watts) and apple is not very well know for making big discounts.

I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in but wasted power is important to a large fraction of the population. On top of that you make an assumption that every wall outlet has infinent power potential.

Also there are plenty of processors to downgrade to (if their budget is limited by any kind of economic thing going on) such as celeron, or just simple core processors, which in whichever setting you put it, it will out-power atom.

That is not likely to be the case when you consider power expended in the equation. In anyevent you seem to mis on the power differential between Atom and the alternatives, Atom could save you 30 to 40 watts over the competition.

I do would like apple to give it a shot to netbooks, however I have seen people saying they are willing to pay $500-700 for a netbook, and i believe that stupid since for 200-300 more than their estimation they can get a full laptop (white MB starts at $900-999,) therefore around would be the top limit for me $400 (keep in mind that in the $400 marging you can get your hands on an old fashion laptop pc [with vista, but w/e] with dual core, potentially with 2GB-3GB, 200GB HDD and some acceptable GPU [e.g. intel 4500 rather than the intel 950 found in most netbooks]
So if mac can get its hand in a HP Mini/Dell 9 mini, change the case to a more proper mac-like case, get rid of the stupid single core atom and put the new dual core/with nvidia 9400 (ion) and its mighty OS + 16GB+ ssd for $400 and maybe touch-screen for $600 it would be great.

Would you just stop going on and on about cost, $400 is a great deal of money to many. Further if you are a family man, a cheap Mac may mean a laptop for both kids.


Dave

 

[xoggyux]

I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in but wasted power is important to a large fraction of the population. On top of that you make an assumption that every wall outlet has infinent power potential.

Not living in fantasy land . lets take a look at power consumption of processors. Intel's processors range from 5W(low end pentium M)-130W (heavy dutty quadcore/i7) with an average of 40-60W for regular (desktop) core 2 duo processors. Which is the equivalent to a regular incandescent lightbulb. To put it in perspective a regular home consumes about of 100 kW or 100,000 which means of all that power only 0.05% (or less) could be blamed to the processor. In a laptop thats a big deal, but in desktop... who cares. Also if you are so paranoid that cannot leave with a few extra watt of power consumption then wait until you realize that almost every single electrical device in your house, even when they are "off" they are stealing a few watts because they are not really "off." Usually if someone wants to save money they will start by avoiding mac's design tax .

And saving money isn't important to you on the initial purchase?

It is, im just saying that apple is not likely to give discounts.

It's more a heat problem than a power consumption problem.

I don't understand... current minis have heat problems? If not, then again its no reason for downgrade.


EDIT: Actually i have been taking a look at present specs of mac mini, and it totally makes sense going for atom processor (a 80GB HDD [I am guessing due to the size a laptop 4200/5200 rpm)/1GB RAM) computer doesn't deserve the core 2 duo processor, however it doesn't deserve the 600-800 price-tag either, so if they go for atom and decrease price by 100/200 i think it worth it =D. And since mac mini doesn't come with a blue-ray optic drive the only source of HD its gonna be internet hence 99.99% of the time codified (hence low bit-rate) and with the appropriate codec atom+nvidia will do just fine.

 

[iMacmatician]

I don't understand... current minis have heat problems? If not, then again its no reason for downgrade.

You said "yeah, but the only reason i can think of, for a demand of a "med-low-performance" desktop is to save money (I believe power consumption is not a factor in desktop computers." Lower-performance CPUs tend to have lower TDPs than higher-performing ones, so a small desktop like the Mac mini would have to use low-power and lower-performance mobile CPUs instead of more powerful and hotter desktop ones.

 

[Yvan256]

[...] with an average of 40-60W for regular (desktop) core 2 duo processors. Which is the equivalent to a regular incandescent lightbulb. [...]

A lot of people have switched/are switching to those low-wattage neon bulbs. The old, outdated incandescent lightbulb doesn't really apply anymore.

[...] computer doesn't deserve the core 2 duo processor, however it doesn't deserve the 600-800 price-tag either [...]

What do you mean by "doesn't deserve a Core 2 Duo"? Keep in mind that Apple barely updates the machine, so the RAM and HD sizes are not up-to-date. Not to mention that RAM and HD sizes don't have anything to do with the CPU!