Many roads can lead to the same place.
Based on the information that Apple provides on their website about the new Mac Pro, I think you'll find that the GeekBench score will be precisely 2.7183 times as high as the present top spec Mac Pro.
At least that's what my highly complicated and in-depth exponential-based performance extrapolation techniques suggest, one generation to the next.
It'll be much, much, much lower. How about less than half of what you estimate. My dual E5-2680s (16 cores total) score about 38,000 [ See my Geekbench profile in the URL in my sig.]. That's four more cores for a higher TDP chip which Apple probably would never have used even if they had timely updated the Mac Pro for Sandy Bridge. Ivy Bridge chips are estimated to yield
up to a 15% performance improvement over my Sandy Bridges [{5% to 15% increase in CPU performance when compared clock for clock}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture) ]. So the math goes like this if we're talking about the 2680s V1 SB: 12/16 = .75; 38,000 x .75 = 28,500 (16 vs 12 cores); 28,500 x 1.15 = 32,775 (max Ivy Bridge improvement). That's no where near 2.7183 x 25,269 [
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks - click on 64-bit Benchmarks ] = 68,688.72. My 4 E5-4650s, which are the exact equivalents of E5-2680s, score only 58,027 and that 32 actual cores or 64 with hyperthreading.
But there's another way of looking at this to compare 2012 12-core with 2013 12-core: The average performance increase, according to IXBT Labs and Semi Accurate as well as many other benchmarking sites, at clock to clock is 11.3% compared to the Nehalem Generation, which includes Bloomfield, Clarkdale, and Lynnfield processors. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_bridge ]. The average score for the top of the line 2012 Mac Pro (2nd Nehalem Generation) is 25,269, as shown above. 25,269 x 1.113 = 28,124.397 (Sandy Bridge diff); 28,124.397 x 1.15 = 32,343.06 (Ivy Bridge diff). Using either route leads to the same place: a Geekbench 2 score of between 32,000 to 33,000 for Apple's top of the line Mac Pro
if (and it's a big if) those 12 cores are clocked at 3.06 GHz. If they're lower clocked, then the delta will be even lower. Thus, as I've said more times than I care to count, the key to the success of the 2013/2014 Mac Pro will be Apple's pricing it for what it truly is. Apple's smoke and mirrors cannot hide the fact that, if you use any benchmarks that we commonly use for CPU performance, performance delta of 2013/2014 Mac Pro over 2012 Mac Pro,
clock per clock, will be, at best, for the top of the line 2013/2014 system 1.28 (= 1.113 x 1.15). Apple's bound by math and the laws of physics just as are its competitors, as are we.
I love all of my math and science teachers. They all told me I'd do so in my later years. And they were 100% correct.
Addendum: In my underclocking studies I performed on my WolfPacks, I found that both the Cinebench and Geekbench score were about 10% less that I expected when I used 2 6-core CPU's as opposed to one 6-core CPU. Thus, the benchmark score range that I suggested above should be widened to 32,000 to 36,000 to take into account that all 12 cores are on one CPU as opposed to 2 CPUs. But it remains to be seen whether those 12 cores will be clocked at 3.05 GHz and I think that is highly unlikely given Sandy Bridge's clockings and Ivy Bridge's projected slight speed bump over Sandy Bridge. I apologize for this late correction.
