this is great news. i wanted to buy a mac mini to get a taste of the mac world but i didnt wanna pay almost $700 for a really slow computer. hopefully the ion platform will also reduce the production costs.

Wait...wouldn't moving to an atom processor be a huge step BACKWARDS in performance?


p.s the comments are screwed up, im logged in but i still have to comment as anonymous?

Wait...wouldn't moving to an atom processor be a huge step BACKWARDS in performance?!


p.s the comment system is screwed up. im logged in, but down at the comment field i still have to comment as anon.

So a mac mini might actually not be pathetically underpowered anymore. Interesting.

I just bought a mac mini with 2GHz core2duo and it's cool.

I most certainly would NOT buy a mac mini with an Atom inside. What are Apple thinking?

Netbook without a screen?

I agree with Tipoo and Dude2000, Taking the atom into the mini would be step back in performance of the system. But if they do this, then the system would/could be smaller and use less power. I personally think that its a dumb idea, but for the time being, people(at least some) seem to think that they don't want or need a full computer, and just need something like a thin client. Now, for a lot of people they really don't need a full computer. E-mail and web would be fine. But for the rest of us, we would like the mini to work well as desktop, home server, security server, etc

Yeah, I don't get it. Wouldn't using an Atom CPU be a huge step down in performance from a Core 2 Duo?

So better GPU, worse CPU?

Oh, and I forgot."An Nvidia partner confirmed to us that Apple was the first to receive samples of Nvidia's Ion platform," that does not mean "Confirmed: Apple Mac Mini Based on Nvidia Ion." Those are two different things. It could happen, but its not Confirmed.

The atom 330 intel sells for $43 dollars to oem in a thousand chip shipments.
The intel dual core e5200 soon (Jan 18, 09) will be sold for $67 dollars to oems in thousand chips shipments.

Now the atom is a little bit cheaper, will require less power, can do a smaller case, etc but I think Mac is sacrificing too much for a mac mini by putting an atom in it at the $500 to $700 price point. Seriously for $25 more dollars Apple can have a cpu that is 3 times faster.

----

Now if the new mac mini is $499 it is a different story.

Yea I compleatly agree the choice to switch to the Atom processor is the wrong one here. I do like seeing improved graphics out of the Mac Mini the Intel 945 sucks. I can barley output 720p video on a Mac Mini despite having the horsepower to do it. I also don't see this as a logical step in terms of 64-bit compatibility. As far as I knew the Atom chips didn't support 64-bit instructions. So what will a Mac Mini with 4gb on memory do now?

Maybe Apple plans on using CUDA on the GeForce 9400 to get back some of the performance lost by using an atom instead of the C2D?

I heard it is for a Netbook not the Mini.

FFS, Change the title of the article.

This in no way confirms the ion in the mac mini, I highly doubt they would take the mini and drastically reduce the performance. If anything it points to a mac netbook, or a new model altogether, perhaps a 'Mac Nano' or something in a smaller case with a lower price tag.
More likely that the mini will get a revamp later this year and keep the Core2 and gain the 9400M to bring it in line with the rest of the range.

intelno1fan - are you paying them to write? Why are you so angry anyway that you gotta say FFS?

Disappointing, I was hoping for an option for a low power quad core, and a motherboard capable of taking up to 8GB (2x4GB) of (aftermarket) ram.

> I also don't see this as a logical step in terms of 64-bit compatibility.
> As far as I knew the Atom chips didn't support 64-bit instructions.

The 230 and 330 atom desktop models actually do support x86-64 instructions, so it will run 64-bit just fine. Since a lot of the horsepower of the old mini would have been used to play catch-up to the weak graphics chipset I think we'll see the benchmarks indicating that this machine is overall a quicker device.

Yes the CPU benchmarks will say otherwise though. I for one look forward to seeing these new minis.

Did Apple not say they wanted to start using the GPU for general use computing? maybe this will bring it into line.

This thing "may" be faster then the specs lead on. Not that I would ever buy one without seeing benchmarks.

Why don't they put the Atom on some thing like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6834131013

It should reduce costs ALOT. Also the Ion platform is MUCH better performance for the power.

I'd definitely love to see some benchmarks of the ion vs Atom230/330!!

and a newer atom (was it 250 or 280?) equipped platform too!

er.. so this is highly stupid. it will be 9400M based *but with a Core 2 Duo CPU*, just like the MacBook.

Apple, the nVidia Ion platform is great for the Mac mini, but what is ALSO needed is:

- A midTOWER with quadcore and 1.5TB 3.5-inch 7200 rpm inside (no need for PCI slots).

- An iTablet with full Mac OS X (not just OS X) inside and no more than 300-400g for full blown presentations via VGA-out port.

My question is: How would Snow Leopard / openCL on a Atom 330/Ion based mini(2cpu cores, 16gpu cores) compare to Leopard w/out openCL and a Core2Duo/gma950 mac mini?

I'd be interested to see how much worse off the openCL enabled system would fare. If it's everything it's cracked up to be, I don't think the performance hit would be as bad as everyone is making out... But then, that would depend on just about every app being ported to using "grand central", which I'm pretty sure won't happen overnight...

so replacing the core2duo with the atom = progress?

let me guess, apple will still sell the mini at the same price

lol.

I am indeed curious. On some forums they say a NAS with a Atom 1,6 Gh is capable of playing back HD content. Although i agree with the aforementioned reservations.

Now if the Mac Mini would only add HDMI video out, and if the Apple TV could also RECORD video . . .

Well, this is definitely a good step. First off, as far as I'm informed they will shave $100 off each model. Second, Atom3300+GF9400M is of no doubts enough for what Mac mini is made for - basic computing needs plus some multimedia CONSUMING, which is becoming more and more about HD abilities, not raw CPU power. Third, this step will finally market-separate Mac mini and iMac 20" - they were oh so close, with mini being a bit too expensive. Bottom line? To me, it definitely brings better bang for buck.

No need to add HDMI out. DVI to HDMI cable on my 2Ghz mini drives a 1080p LCD brilliantly for me. Plays 720p fine.

In my opinion, all the new mac mini needs to be able to do is play 1080p flawlessly to be a success. I imagine this is the reason they have upped the GPU and seem to have made the CPU choice based on heat output and power consumption.

A Blu-Ray drive would be a genius addition, but yeah I know it's not gonna happen :-)

I think it's highly unlikely, there is note that future mac mini will have nvidia chipset from macrumors, but apple will never go backwards in performance - they skip small upgrades in order to deliver major ones ...
This seems more like it for AppleTV where it could be upgrade in performance.

cheap atom + high price apple = more revenue for apple

if use atom , i better buy new macbook and big LCD and connect together ,if like that and i won buy the new mac mini.