Feedback submitted to the "Mac Pro Team" on Apple......
Which very likely was promptly sent to /dev/null as a confused, muddled mess.
First, the 2010 models aren't current. The 2012 Mac Pro models so this is really a contest of going back into Mac Pro history to pick out a model that currently isn't sold as new ( refurb special cases are a sideshow).
It always has been true and will continue to be true that the lastest mini will be some older Mac Pro. It is actually much more obvious if you had actually quoted the Macmini colo folks.
".... Dont look now, but the new Mac minis are getting comparable to the last gen Xserve and 2010 Mac Pros as far as benchmarks. Tech progress marches on. ... "
http://blog.macminicolo.net/post/34175374589/impressions-of-the-2012-mac-mini-updated
The XServe is in there too. The comment's context is clear that they are going into the past for the equivalency here.
Second, this actually pretty close to be a comparison of with the 2009 Mac Pro in terms of technology. In 2010, Intel did
not release any updates to the Xeon 3500 series that would match the entry and mid level Mac Pros. There was one and only one 3600 series model released and Apple used it in the highest end single CPU package option. So the entry level machine went from W3520 to W3530 . So at the border were making these mini CPU benchmark comparisons the technology hasn't moved at all since 2009. A 2012 Mac Mini that is a tick-tock-tick generation ahead caught the Mac Pro is a "hang your head in same" event? That's a joke. It is almost the opposite that with that kind of handicapp the Machine is still in the ballgame.
That even the entry level 2012 Mac Pro is still on 2009 era CPU architecture is one reason why some of the talk about "it is better to intentionally skip Sandy Bridge" is a dubious idea. If the Mac Pro team purposefully planned on skipping Sandy Bridge as part of a long term design choice then
that would be a "hang your head in shame" moment.