Here's Apple's own power stats on the Mac Pro: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201796
And for the Mac Mini: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201897
Yes, there's a big difference!
Thanks for the links, yeah, looks substantial in terms of wattage . . . for the most part even "maxed" the Mini is using less power . . . and seemingly less than when the big boys are "at idle." I guess there could be some "argument" like Detroit offered back in the 70's gas crunch, that a V-8 engine could "use less gas" than smaller engines because you never had to use all the power of it . . . it was always "under-stressed" and therefore "economical" . . . .
So, that would be the question, whether in the long run the Mac Pro . . . under-utilized for its max power . . . would last longer??? But, seems like if the mini is using roughly 85 watts maxed out, that is still well under some of the MP's "idle" wattage . . . . Seems like for OSX the Mini would be the cheaper machine to operate . . . .
And then what about the 2012 cut-off for having RAM soldered into place in Apple laptops?? Is that across the board for all Apple machines, post 2012 RAM is hard-soldered and not really up-grade-able??? So any Mini after that would have to be set up with >8GB RAM to be able to do anything around 10.9??? And, Mini's are "easy" to work on, or, PITA like the iMac???
And, then, trying to catch some opinion on whether there are better choices of machines, easy to work on and easy on power that are non-Apple?? Or, really Apple continues to make a really nice machine and it's worth the bucks to get their smallest computer--it's just all-around that good?