Plus, those Adobe apps are heavily CPU-dependent as I understand it, so app performance from the Xeons in the Pro would be noticeably better for you.
Debatable - the top-end iMac has a 3.6GHz 8-core i9 which will likely beat the 3.2GHz 8-core Xeon in a sprint. The Xeon 'upgrades' have more- but slower - cores so they'll only offer better performance on workflows that can use all those cores.
OTOH, the Xeon plus the better cooling system
may be able to sustain full speed for longer, and have better memory bandwidth. It may also be quieter under heavy load...
The iMac Pro also has better i/o (4x TB3/USB-C rather than 2, supports more external displays etc.) although the 10Gbps Ethernet is irrelevant unless you use networked storage and fancy upgrading all the cables, routers, switches on your network...
the top current iMac 27" model with the higher specs except for RAM which would be 32GB.
Actually, for the iMac, its usually far more economical to get the default 8GB and a 3rd party 32GB or 64GB upgrade kit. Not an option with the iMac Pro. On the flipside, don't forget the cost of getting the SSD option instead of the fusion drive on the iMac (you may want to think hard about whether you want 1TB, 2TB or could make do with 512GB + externals).
Trouble is, "Photoshop, Logic Pro, Final Cut Pro X and Lightroom" (don't know about Zbrush) is as long as a bit of string - there's nothing there that won't run on the cheapest iMac for light workloads - it all depends on what resolutions you are using, how many layers in Photoshop, what plugins, video formats and movie lengths, how many tracks/virtual instruments in Logic etc. If you're
primarily a 2D illustrator and have a limited budget then even the fully-tricked-out regular iMac could be an overkill.
A useful starting point would be what you are
currently using (and how often your workload is lighting up all the cores, or showing high memory pressure in Activity Monitor, whether you have an SSD...)
