iMac Pro is cost-effective on the Intel platform. But AMD's Threadripper is the topic of discussion here, and I think for most people... those 32-cores for $1799 is just a way better deal.

Do remember that this 32-core Threadripper offers quad-channel memory, 64x PCIe lanes, and ECC support (!!). So the Threadripper offers pretty much everything a professional wants.

The only downside to Threadripper is that its multi-threaded performance is similar to a quad-socket / quad-CPU design (~200ns to ~300ns latencies to memory, depending on how many "hops" and NUMA nodes and stuff...). So audio professionals and gamers who are IIRC latency bound may want to stick to Intel.

But almost everyone else is bandwidth bound (video editing, 3d rendering, compilers, web servers, LT Spice...). So most professionals would probably prefer a Threadripper.

Threadripper is the broadest point of topic in the thread. Down here, the question was about if Apple actually charged $20K for a particular computer. They don't and given the particular hardware choices, the iMac Pro is a great deal. The ideal choice of hardware is a separate topic.

Still heavily marked up. 32GB ECC isn't $800. Current nVidia GPUs will run circles around those Radeons - even more so with Turing.

Yeah, it's like $500. Of course there's a markup on it. Apple doesn't make money by assembling parts at stock prices and then sending it to you.

It's the case that building a comparable computer (in terms of the specific iMac Pro hardware) is very similarly priced BUT requires labor, the purchase of an OS and additional peripherals: https://youtu.be/SONKIJd8xRM?t=187

That said, your point that Apple could've chosen better hardware at its price, is reasonable but off topic.

He did not. He is talking about the Mac Pro not iMac Pro. The former goes from 3000.0 to 4000.0 USD https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-pro

[update]Sorry he said $20,000. SO you are right