2x8GB for MP (leaves another 2 slots for future expansion) costs $168 @OWC.
2x8GB for new iMac costs $115 at the same place.
i7-6core-3.3GHz is about $600, 3.1GHz-6core-xeon is about $2k.
I'd guess the chipset price difference is also substantial.
I'd guess that your objective is primarily just FUD. I'm not going to cover all the rest of the flawed, misdirected, and deceptive stuff that you spun here in all the responses but this first one is representative.
1st Apple is filling Macs with 4 not 8GB modules. There difference there is
$62 (
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1600MHz_SDRAM)
versus
$79 ( the 1333Mhz options to match closer speed
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory )
A whopping whole $17 or just 0.7% of a $2500 price point. No, that isn't going to make a huge pricing difference.
2nd Apple isn't going to use E5 2600 xeons in a single package context. Just like the 3500/3600 versus 5500/5600 series there is a E5 1600 and 2600 series. You pulled down 2600 prices as a deceptive attempt at misdirection.
E5 1620 4C 3.6GHz L3 10MB $249
E5 1650 6C 3.2GHz L3 12MB $583
E5 1660 6C 3.3GHz L3 15MB $1083
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/59138/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-Family/server
i7 3820 4C 3.8GHz L3 10MB $249
i7 3930 6C 3.2GHz L3 12MB $583
i7 3960X 6c 3.3GHz L3 15MB $999
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/59136 (first two )
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/59135 (3960X )
The differences being $0 , $0 , and $84. $84 is 2% of $3,000. A minor swing for just
one of 3 models at the top end of the scale. It is also not likel present at the volume purchasing levels Apple would be buying at. ( ark tray prices are in lots of a 1,000. Apple will likely be buying in higher volume.)
x79 chipset is actually in the "server" chipset section of Ark
http://ark.intel.com/products/64015/Intel-BD82X79-PCH
C602
http://ark.intel.com/products/63984/Intel-BD82C602-PCH
They are basically the same. The 602 has 4 more SATA ports so it will be more but you get (presuming Apple adds some 2.5" bays in exchange for a 5.25 bay ) more.
The socket 2011 Core i7 models are derivatives of the Xeon E5 designs. Likewise the X79 is a derivative of the C600 design. Intel charges about the same prices for both since they are about the same. This class of Core i7 being "oh so cheaper" than Xeon E5 is bunch of smoke and FUD.
Apple misses out on the xMac customers. They also miss out on the 1U and 2U servers. low cost netbooks. 6-9 lbs notebooks. etc. That completely misses the point that the overall Mac product mix is what matters most. The objective is to go after as many customers with as few as Mac models as necessary. That gives Apple the highest return on investment.
The premise that Apple has to go after capturing the as much of the PC market as possible is deeply flawed. Apple is cherry picking the subset of the PC market that is profitable and has best prospects for growth. The subset that is retracting and is unprofitable they skip. Generic low end boxes with slots is in that latter category.
What does screen size having to do with color fidelity? Small screens can look bad? Small pixels don't need gamut and dynamics?
Which one needs better quality: 10" ipad screen or 11" air screen?
For 16M colors, how do you show them all with just
ipad ~ 3M pixels
iphone > 1M pixels
Even a 1/4 of those , 4M, is more than the number of pixels on a iPad. Throw on top that users cannot see the individual pixels ( Retina after all) and users can
not see those colors.
16M colors is for 24 bit color. ( 8/8/8 for RGB). 10 bit color is in the billions. You need something around a 27" monitor ( resolutions at least 2560x1440 and
larger pixels to get into the range were start to get deep traction.)
Pixel size makes a difference. 30 bit makes it easier to correct/calibrate the larger pixels for drift. Human vision maxs out around 10M colors (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth#True_color_.2824-bit.29). 400 and 500 ppi wouldn't make the iPhone screen a more "Retina Display".
