Owning both an Atom-based Aspire One and an E-350 Aspire, I'd hardly call them "equivalent". Aside from the not-so-hot 1.6 GHz clock speed, the two have almost nothing in common. The Atom has Hyperthreading, the E-350 has two physical cores. The Atom relies on Intel's graphics, the E-350 has an integrated GPU that has NEVER been the bottleneck for anything I want to run. The Aspire One is limited to 2 GB of RAM (and in this implementation only takes 1.5), the E-350 machine currently has 8 GB installed.
I wouldn't use the E-350 to encode video, or even large amounts of audio, that's why I have a 6-core desktop machine. Sometimes Minecraft gets choppy on the E-350 (CPU-bound, not GPU). The screen on the Aspire is rather disappointing, it's much like the Aspire One -- glossy, 16- or 18-bit, and of insufficient resolution for its size. But that has ZERO to do with the choice of CPU, the i3 version has the same disappointing screen and costs almost $100 more.
I'm not knocking your assessment of the Atom, far from it. But to call it and the E-350 "equivalent" is like saying a Yugo and a Honda Civic are "equivalent".