Also the $1999 iMac Has a built in 27" display so the gap would be actually quite a bit more than $1k when some who are eyeing the Apple display or another monitor tack that on to the total cost.
The $1999 iMac has slower CPU , GPU , and storage (HDD). Having a huge price gap becauses making different trade-off weightings (e.g., need a monitor and like Apple's alot) then that over $1K gap doesn't matter so much.
It is when try to bring the Mac Pro and the iMac into close parity (putting aside Monitor. Some folks have them already (or higher requirements ) and some folks don't. ) on CPU , GPU (and maybe also storage ) then a $1K gap becomes is just an opportunity for competitors; not for Apple.
I expect the base MacPro to be faster than the highest end iMac, maybe using a 6 cores CPU.
I expect it higher as system ( perhaps near parity on CPU but better memory and storage bandwidth). Myopically focusing on CPUs when it is system pricing that is in the balance is skewed. To be cost effective to hit close to iMac prices the Mac Pro needs to leverage a 4 core Intel offering at this point. Going to 6 cores skews the costs.
The Mac Pro doesn't "have to" beat the iMac BTO options on single core drag racing. If single core drag racing is the primary value point what need with system with core count numbers boasted as high as the Mac Pro ( and yes counting
all the cores x86 and GPGPU ones. ).
. With the expandibility gone, raw power is the only reason to go for a new MacPro. A slow MacPro would not make much sense.
A four core E5 1620 Mac Pro wouldn't be slow. It probably won't win at single threaded, Turbo mode computations but how is that a "raw power" demonstration?
The internal expandability is going but the expansion options are far more flexible and diverse with a 6 ( versus 2 ) Thunderbolt port Mac Pro. There is still a large and substantive expandability gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Dumping Apple and going elsewhere can go back to older box-with-slot model but that has little to do with Apple offerings at this point.
I would therefore not be surprised if it was priced above the iMac. One thing to note is that Apple chose an E5 26xx v2 CPU for its prototype MacPro,
That wasn't the prototype Mac Pro that was the bragging rights Mac Pro they talked up at WWDC. Maximum everything, money is no object, "up to" all the money in your pocket Mac Pro.
We will see whether the base models will switch to 16xx CPUs or stick to the more expensive 26xx line.
Apple would have to be on drugs not to use the 16xx CPUs. The 26xx line is designed and price optimized for dual CPU package systems. The Mac Pro is a single CPU package system. That 12 core "ultra max" CPU package by itself probably costs more than an entire entry Mac Pro system. E5 2697 v2 is $2618 (
http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz ) before Apple slaps their 30-35% mark-up on it. Customer cost is likely in $3,400 just for the CPU.
