> Why invest in the development of such a high-end chip for Mac Pro’s low volume? - Control of the whole stack (Apple's stated M.O.) - Consistent architecture

> Why invest in the development of such a high-end chip for Mac Pro’s low volume? - Control of the whole stack (Apple's stated M.O.) - Consistent architecture across all their product lines - If it's roughly twice as energy efficient, as claimed, the floor-standing heat sink known as the Mac Pro could potentially be smaller and lighter again (or they could keep the case the same and increase internal expansion, as they did when they switched the cheesegrater from G5 to Xeon, or they could double the core count with the same cooling) - Depending on how much cheaper it would be, you could put the same CPU into less expensive Macs (high-core-count-Xeon-level performance in an iMac or Mini would be quite compelling) How much difference is there in architecture between a Xeon-level chip and an i3-level chip? I assumed most of the added cost of a Xeon was market segmentation, so if you had another way to do that (e.g., by only selling CPUs in complete systems), you'd be able to increase performance on the low end without losing money.