So Apple tried to find a lower cost solution fo people wanting a Mac Pro. No big deal here. More so because many people buying the machine consider other factors more important than the number of cores built in.
So if a user is going to pay a "high end" price they better get high end performance.
That is exactly what they get. It is just that they aren't simpletons judging performance solely on what the cores do.
Or at least performance that beats machines that are half the price. And no, it's not just some obscure funky test, there are plenty of real world mainstream uses where the MP is slower.
Who really gives a hoot about your tests as there are as many where the Pro is faster. Beside people buying the Pro have more concerns than core speeds.
We're talking about price and performance, and the quad MP fails that in a big way.
So what are we doing here comparing a bottom end Pro with a top end iMac. Nice!
Let me highlight something for you, a lot of iMac users or potential users have rode Apple hard over the years about iMac performance. Thankfully Apple finally responded because there was no sound reason fir artificial limits on iMac performance. The markets the two machines are so different that there is little overlap in users or potential buyers so why shouldn't the iMac have good performance?
Yes the iMac is cheaper but you are giving up a lot to get that lower price. The mistake you make here is believing the Mac Pros value is in it's performance, it seldom is a singular parameter resulting in a Pro purchase. This is even more so in the low end Pro which serves different users again.
I never said anything about a crazy upgrade cycle, and see no connection between my post and your reply.
I'm talking about people who are in the market for a new machine because they ARE at the end of a reasonable upgrade cycle. Those people are better off waiting and getting a 6 or 12 core machine in a month or two instead of 4/8 that are shipping today.
Well yeah that is often the case. That is why the common wisdom is to buy when needed and if you don't need it buy right after a new product release. That however applies to just about every new piece of computing hardware.
Heck I purchased an early 2008 MPB, which I still use, that was replaced by a much better Unibody design in the fall. Do I cry in my soup over that, no because it was the right time to buy for my needs. Besides the machine has been very pleasing and usable for my needs.
Now almost 2.5 years later I wonder if a laptop makes sense in light of the IMac or Mini working inncombo with an iPad. The point is times change and how you value your needs change.
Plus hopefully more ram slots and other improvements, as well as the possibility of a lower price. AND even if you don't need that much power, it STILL makes sense to wait because once the new machines are announced, they put the previous generation on sale.
This may be true but if you really need a Mac Pro right now there is nothing wrong with the current one. That is the point I think you are missing, focusing on performance just side tracks the discussion. The Mac Pro has never been a pure CPU performance play. The fact that it has outstripped other Apple hardware in the past is more a function of the limited chip selections available for the iMac.