"Audio processing, especially in realtime, is very CPU intensive. Bearing in mind a single small processing plugin might take up a whole 1% of your CPU power. Except you want to use it on 120 tracks... Or others which use more, or lots of others that use less. ... so the alternative is to render the audio offline, which takes valuable time and will only happen quicker with faster CPUs. The more cores the better as decent audio software is written to take advantage of every core it can get its hands on and will spread the load as far and wide as it can (so turbo cycles aren't a great deal of use, one of the reason dual-Xeon systems still compare well to the newer and supposedly faster i7 rigs for this sort of thing)."
Taken from this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2013-mac-pro-for-music.1593780/
Given the fact that Pro Tools is a multicore application that will use all the cores you throw at it I would upgrade.
Considering that CPUs for Mac Pro 2013 are pretty cheap nowadays I would say go ahead and order the E5-2697 v2.
I think the double amount of cores and the substantiality more lv2/lv3 cache will make up for the lower clock speed.
I'm by no means a pro but just my thoughts...
Taken from this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2013-mac-pro-for-music.1593780/
Given the fact that Pro Tools is a multicore application that will use all the cores you throw at it I would upgrade.
Considering that CPUs for Mac Pro 2013 are pretty cheap nowadays I would say go ahead and order the E5-2697 v2.
I think the double amount of cores and the substantiality more lv2/lv3 cache will make up for the lower clock speed.
I'm by no means a pro but just my thoughts...