Amazing to think that was an 8mhz 68000. I can't even compute how many times faster a new Mac Pro is today (even if you ignore the GPU). Or even how many times more powerful my iPhone 5 is than this.
In comparison to all of this, a processor running at 8MHz that could do full 32-bit operations (though, yes, the external bus was half that) and with 16 32-bit registers. and no segments...mind blowing!
[1] That is, things that fit in mostly-16-bit data sets. Once framebuffer manipulation became the dominant operation a few years later, that status would flip. Nonetheless if you were trying to compile your code, model your circuit or calculate your spreadsheet as fast as possible in 1984, you'd probably pick a PC/AT over a Mac (if you couldn't get time on a VAX).
If you look at the cycle counts for 8086 instructions - see, e.g., http://zsmith.co/intel.html - they're much closer to the 68000 ones. Compared to the 68000, the 286 is just on another level.
Obviously all the Unix vendors jumped on the '10 instantly. The MK68000 itself was never dominant there.
The low-end Mac Pro has four cores at 3.9GHz each. I believe they'll do in the neighborhood of 3 instructions per clock cycle at peak performance, so that means the total is 3.9 x 4 x 3 x 1000 = 46,800 MIPS. Roughly. So in the neighborhood of 50,000 times faster when looking at the CPUs.
The GPUs make it outright ludicrous. The low-end Mac Pro does 2 teraFLOPS on the GPUs. Even if we're charitable to the 68000 and consider its 1 MIPS roughly equivalent to 1 MFLOPS, the Mac Pro is still two million times faster there.
And of course the Mac Pro is substantially cheaper when adjusted for inflation. Although it doesn't come with a display, nor any input devices.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Disk_Swappers_Elb...
[1] of course pushing compositeless full screen cga or even vga doesn't require the same architecture complexity