You know Utilizer. . . I just realized you don't really know what it takes to really DO graphics, do you? Think about the sheer computational power necessary to do reality ray tracing in a three-dimensional scene in a 32 bit, 1080P HD 3D video. If you want it in real time, the new Mac Pro can do THAT — and it can do it only slightly slower in 4000 line HD video! The Computational power of the Macs that you are so denigrating because they do "graphics" can do that. . . and handling your piddly CAD/CAM work is child's play compared to that kind of computation and precision. Graphics work is among the highest and heaviest computation a computer can be put to doing.
AutoCad is available for the Mac—the Mac is where CAD/CAM started . . . Hell, autoCad has made a 3D CAD App for the iPad. Cad/Cam doesn't take computational horsepower. . . just good programs. I know of a machine shop that has a CAD/CAM system running their 12 computer controlled lathes on Commodore C-64s. It gets the job done for some very complex shapes. . . But it's a bear to program. . . and he has stacks of extra C-64s, 1541 disk drives, 1702 monitors, and a crate of power bricks in the back. But the owner has a hell of a time finding 8.25" floppy disks. . . I told him when I last saw him some Chinese company had put a C-64 on a Flash Drive for playing games. As I said, CAD/CAM doesn't take a lot of oomph.
Consider this scene from Avatar:
Now think of 24 of those for every second of film for that scene. Everything in it, including Jake Scully, is CAD, composed of millions of triangles, then color and texture applied, then light traced, calculating blur, haze, motion of multiple items, TWICE—from a slightly different angle.
The Macs you so blithely dismiss as mere graphic computers are capable of rendering that scene. . . and the Mac Pro is capable of creating it—in real time—with dual graphic cards that produce 7 TERAFLOPS of computational power.
Just eleven years ago, the third fastest supercomputer in the world was built by Virginia Tech using 1100 networked dual processor desktop PowerMacs for about $6 million. Most of that money was for a building, racks, and cooling. Even at that price it was one quarter the price of the 2nd fastest supercomputer. . . and one tenth the price of the fastest that year. However, what's important is that those 1100 PowerMacs were capable of producing 10.5 Teraflops.
The 2013-2014 MacPro, all 1 of it, can produce 7 Teraflops all by itself! Cost? Under $3000 in its basic configuration.