www.barefeats.com has a link to a comparison between a dual 2.80 Xeon and a dual 1.25 PM. The link comment points out the only 19% faster speed of the dual Xeon system over the dual 1.25 PM. "Speaking of Dual Xeon, you'll want to see this graph of a Dual Xeon versus Dual G4. Even though the Dual 2.8GHz Xeon has a 124% faster clock speed than the Dual 1.25GHz G4, it only runs the test suite 19% faster. (Ignore the pricing. They're way off.)" The comparison itself it at: http://www.simkiss.net/mac.html It's not clear to me what the controls of the test were, e.g. what software was used, although there is a list of Adobe applications on the page and barefeats refers to the "test suite". I actually found this quite encouraging. For example, according to this test, a 1.25 PM owner will have a machine that is 90% faster than a 2.5 GHz P4, and as mentioned only 19% slower than a dual 2.8. Here, the price / performance actually favors Apple a bit. I configured a Dell Precision workstation in a few different lines a couple weeks back and with one processor and a DVD writable drive and a 64 MB vid card upgrade I was at $3,000 with only one 120 GB HD - add another $900 to $1,200 for the second processor. I would imagine that my dual 1.42 would be even closer to the dual Xeon system (and at only $2,600 +). The 1.42 is quite fast in its feel in general (My applications open instantaneously... I note that when I'm not fussing around in something else a SETI@home work unit only takes a bit over 5 hours to complete). But this comparison was nice to see. There is also a comparison of a dual 1.42 vs. a single P4 3 GHz HT machine on barefeats. The P4 did win two out of three tests, but the dual 1.42 was very close on the two it lost. Again, price / performance is close once one configures a Dell with a writable DVD drive, FW card, 512 MB of ram, a 120 GB HD, and video card.