It surely chews no code containing AVX/AVX instructions. Also support vor VT-d is probably missing, just as TSX. Not to speak of AVX-512, which is planned by Intel to come to prosumer processors in near future.
I get most of my software pre-compiled through apt repositories. It's all using basic X86_64 instruction sets. My computer, being a relatively recent Core i5, has plenty of advanced features [0], but outside of one piece of manually compiled software occupying less than 5% of my CPU on average (an LP solver used by a bot), I'm not taking advantage of any of it.
Considering how much electron apps have taken over my desktop, SSD and RAM play an exponentially bigger role in the quality of experience than my processor does.
[0] https://ark.intel.com/products/91160/Intel-Core-i5-6260U-Pro...
A lot of things are interpreted nowadays, if the interpreter is updated to understand the processor features, it can take advantage of it.
[1] https://www.qnap.com/solution/container_station/en/ [2] https://www.qnap.com/solution/virtualization-station/en-au/
VT-d not being in every processor is Intel's fault for using binning to gouge consumers. Though everyone doesn't need VMs or containers.
VT-d also enables device driver containment/isolation, again, which provides value to people not otherwise interested in VMs or containers.
https://ark.intel.com/products/78930/Intel-Core-i7-4710HQ-Pr...
TXT is more a part of vPro and provides bootup security, including drivers loaded at startup. Everyone doesn't need VT-d or TXT. Most BIOSes support some sort of signing if you bother to setup it up and verify that your kernel hasn't changed. Intel could have made vPro, TPMs and TXT open and available to everyone, regardless of VT-d, but that's how they chose to differentiate and make a little more money. Mom and pop need to settle for basic kernel signing instead of an open TPM module.