Fortunately, with a majority of my paying work the output is a constant in terms of size. Everything is around 7" X 10" .... some cropped and sized to 7X10, some not. So, of 1,000 shots maybe 600 make it to the client in proof form. They will never use that many images, but expect them to be usable. Of all that I may need to print a 17 X 22 display print, or around 5 to 10 larger images for an album ... in that case they are segregated in a collection and processed out at the larger scale.I strongly believe that images should be processed at full strength only when final media and size are established. There is no point in developing all redundant shots the same way as key shots and indeed for small prints noise and details are not as important as with big prints. Colors and shadows though are always important to me.
F.e. I don't understand why all vendors ignore half-conversions, i.e. Raw conversion without any interpolation and with loss of resolution. It gives 4 times less megapixels in output, but very fast and color accurate. My converter is not the fastest one and it takes about 10 sec. to produce 6MP image out of 24MP Raw file on my rather slow MacBook Pro. On a Mac Pro it would be like 2 sec. or something. That's 6MP! I used to blow such pictures to A3 size and it's definitely enough for very high quality 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints. Imagine how quick it would be in LR with their fast and sloppy methods - I'd guess about 3 sec. or better per 24MP raw on a laptop and less than 1 sec on a good workstation. I use this approach for years and it's actually more than enough to judge picture colors, sharpness and filter out keepers from goners.
Regarding benefits of better processing - in my opinion C1 is not that much different from ACR or any other. They all are limiting factors, not cameras. You cameras and lenses actually capture a lot more and in better quality than you get out of those converters. So it may actually be that all 100 of those shots will benefit from quality processing.
The assumption is that something like C1 will produce superior images for all 100 possible album images ... when in my experience that isn't true. LR does a very good job with most but not all files. So I may want to select certain images I think will benefit from C1's attributes despite the slower work flow.
Guys like Irakly use LR almost exclusively (rarely ever resorting to other RAW converters or even PS after the fact) ... and his work can hardly be seen as suffering.