> . It should be the most powerful desktop you can get for that tag.

It should not, the most powerful machine you can get tends to be the one you build yourself from components sourced from competing suppliers. This is one of the reasons people build 'Hackintosh' machines, trading design and branding for raw power.

I think you misunderstood the parent comment. They are suggesting that if you're paying the massive premium that Apple charges for the Mac Pro workstation, it should be the most powerful desktop available.

The actual situation is more like what you're saying, but that isn't what the word should means.

No, it isn't a misunderstanding, just a statement of fact. If you want the highest price/performance ratio branded products are usually not the place to go, especially not products from companies which produce "luxury" goods. You pay for the branding, the marketing, the right to be part of the community of users just like you pay for the hardware. Those who built 'Hackintosh' style systems spend less money but more time getting their systems up and running.

The thermals might rather fit an iMac instead of a Mac Pro though :D

you can get a 64 core threadripper so....

Yeah, forgot about that beast. That would beat it. A multi-chip Epyc or high-end Xeon would beat it too, but that'll set you back almost as much as the Mac Pro.

A 32-core pro would still win hands down in power efficiency. A 64-core Threadripper or a multi-Epyc would be a nice extra space heater in cold climates though.