How is this "much more affordable" given the $300 increase for the 2nd model, and the base model being the same price but only having one processor?

edit: I see. They are comparing the suggested model with the previous high-end machine.

I thought i had read that the 2.8 was a different chip than the 3.0 and 3.2, with a slower frontside buss? Anyone know for sure?

It would be nice if they'd make an effort to minimize the variables. In this comparison, they've changed the clock speed, chip type, and amount of RAM. Ideally, they would have compared 3.0 GHz Cloverton to 3.0 GHz Penryn. Even if they didn't have the 3.0 GHz Cloverton, they should have AT LEAST put the same amount of RAM in both machines. It's impossible to tell how much the RAM difference affected the results, so how do you draw conclusions?

Yawn!
Arguably the old and the new have the same performance, a slightly different price tag, and probably lower power consumption for the 45 nm.
Yeah a definite Yawn.

For many, speed is not an issue anymore but size and price are. Hopefully we won't be disappointed on Tuesday and we'd see an xMac with at-least one PCI slot.

it appears they compared the previous top-of-the-line dual processor Mac Pro with the new bottom of the line DP model, both in stock config as sold by Apple.

The new one low-end DP Mac Pro (stock config) comes with more RAM, better video, enhanced card slotting and memory, larger HD, and the new Al keyboard, for substantially less money, and closely matches performance with the previous top-tier model. And unlike 8-core Mac Pros bought before October 07, it includes Leopard. Also has more upfront ports, I believe.

It seems pretty apparent that it's an overall better deal.

I can't think of a single thing I do on a Mac where I wouldn't appreciate more speed. Faster app loading, better performance, less beach-balls. I know I'd get more out of typing better, but overall, more speed is never a bad thing