Want an Atom 330-based Mac Mini? No, you don't

I don't shive-a-git what is cost savings to Apple. I want a product that fulfills my technical and performance needs at a price I'm willing to pay. And if Apple can't produce it, I'll be forced to look for it elsewhere. That's it. Using the Atom is a huge step backwards in performance. Over the history of the Mac Mini line it has always been on par with the line of MacBook laptops. Laptop parts, without a screen. Now they are going to produce an inferior line that will have lower benchmarks than the current line that is almost 500 days old?!?!? That makes no sense whatsoever. Putting the New Mini on the same level as the MacBook Air (which the current C2D Mini crushes) is going in reverse. There is absolutely no reason why the new Mini can't be made with the current line of MacBook CPU's and GPU designs. And it very much should be. There is a HUGE gap in price point between the Mini and the Mac Pro (the only other desktop computer without a built in screen). Everything else; the iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air all have built in screens and therefore are useless to people who don't want/need them and very overpriced for those who don't want them. Currently, you only have two other options; the $600 dollar computer and the $2,800 dollar computer. Which is WAY too large a price difference. There needs to be a price/performance option somewhere in between, and the Atom... yeah, is not it.

If the rumor is true, I think Steve Jobs must be trying to prove his point. Apple may be releasing an under 500$ desktop that (most definitely) will be a piece of crap.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/66558

"What do you plan to do with a Mac Mini that an Ion-based Mini can't do?"

Uh, everything? Despite what you may think, the C2D chip line (old and new) is notable faster than the Atom, which is designed for netbook type devices where power use is at a premium. Since the mac mini is plugged into the wall, there is no point in using it. And the 9400M as somehow as a make up for this lack in CPU power is ludicrous. That's like saying putting bigger tires on a car makes up for the slower engine.

"An Ion Mini will out perform a current gen mini in just about everything."

No, it won't. Keep that 'just good enough' attitude to yourself. No one should settle for an inferior product in place of a better, older one. That's insane. The current benchmarking numbers show a significant drop in performance compared to current chip line that are in the MacBooks; which should also be in the new mini as they have in all prior models. Benchmarking between Mini's and MacBooks have been almost identical, so this is a good measuring stick to what a new Mini with the same CPU and GPU would be. The Atom is pretty close in horsepower to the current MacBook Air, so those numbers are also a good representation. Here is what they both look like:

Actual Geekbench scores:
MacBook (Early 2008) Intel Core 2 Duo T8300 2.4 GHz - 3247
Mac mini (Mid 2007) (Mine) Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz - 2711
MacBook Air Intel Core 2 Duo P7700 1.8 GHz - 2122
MacBook Air Intel Core 2 Duo P7500 1.6 GHz - 2012

The Atom has a smaller cache, smaller FSB, Smaller clock spped.... and you are saying I should pay more for a new machine that scores less in performance than the old? O.o Crazy talk.

"Now the C2D 2 Ghz is definitely faster than an A330, but the 9400 is soooo much faster than a GMA950. The difference between CPU is much smaller than the difference in GPU."

Which means nothing. The new Mini would have the exact same GPU as a potential Atom chipped one, so saying the GPU makes up for the slower CPU makes no sense at all. A new Mini would use the same chip as the Current MacBooks, which is a 2.4 GHz C2D chip AND the faster 9400M. So you're saying it's ok to use an A330 instead of a 2.4 GHz C2D, because the gap between the GMA950 and the 9400M makes up for it. That too is also, insane.

"Assuming the Ion Mac Mini runs Snow Leopard, which features tons of GPU acceleration, you'll see nothing but a faster system. A 9400M accelerated video encode will happen faster than it currently does on a C2D."

Again, both the new C2D's and 9400M's would BE in the new Mini instead of the Atom, so again: this is insane. Using a slower chip is in fact just that, slower. And not just slower compared to what might be, it's slower to what came before it. *(see specs above)

"It seems to me than any task that is faster on a current Mini under Leopard will be faster on an Ion Mini under Snow Leopard. Ion is amazingly fast.
If you can think of a task that is better suited for today's C2D Mini than tomorrow's Ion Mini, than you probably should be running a iMac or Mac Pro.
Having used an Ion platform first hand (admittedly running Windows XP) I can tell you that this is what you want. There's simply no way to have a faster computer, in a package thats as small (or smaller)."

Yes, you can have a faster computer because it makes no difference how friggen big or small it is. And no, I don't want it (The Atom). Since when do people need a smaller Mini?! O.o What spawned this crazy mentality that I need to pack everything into a 6.5 in square and the next model HAS to be even smaller that that? What it needs to be is bigger. Big enough for a CD/DVD burner and 2 HD's and a full sized video card. Make it a Mini tower. You get no extra points for trying to shoehorn too much into a tiny box. That may make for great marketing in the laptop competition, but makes no sense in the desktop world where mini towers, HTPC's, media boxes and the like are all significantly larger and do just fine and don't cost $2,800 bucks. But now you're saying because I don't want to settle for a slower machine, or buy a more expensive machine with a screen I don't need or want that costs more than the old one, my only choice is to buy a computer that 's 20 times larger, 10 times louder, weighs 10 times more, costs 100 times more in electricity to run, and costs $2,200 dollars over the other?

You sir, are in fact... insane.

You know cooks that drive BMWs???

because a 1W ATV under a power-hungry LCD is better than a 100W ATV under a power-hungry LCD.