Not just rack space. If workloads have to be on the same machine or socket (not NUMA/RDMA friendly), your only choice is to get bigger and bigger processors.
If I can spend $5k to save a week of optimization work, it's a good deal. Also buying clockspeed can't create new bugs either, which is a risk with any code change.
That said, companies that need more speed often don't need that extra speed on just one node. So that's really $5K x N nodes. When you consider that just the CPU costs $15K, and not the complete cost of a system, I think it's a lot harder to justify. You better have that next lower tier $10K CPU and know that you need just that little bit more. And then... you probably ought to be investing in scaling out horizontally while that $5K x N buys you time.
Famous last words
Some software does not like high clockspeeds. For example, game engine in GTA V starts acting up when framerate gets too high.
If you look at a longer time horizon, there are other dynamics. Your contract may not allow you to reduce license spend in three years, but you can shrink your hardware spend.
No reason not to capture margin for a handful of top-binned chips.
There’s a lot of software out there, legacy and otherwise, where the throughput ceiling is what you can do with one box.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/aop378...
tldr; Most likely food, makeup, toothpaste etc. Especially food safe and biodegradable glitters. They are also located close geographically (New Jersey) to those industries.
Here's one: EVE Online servers. Back in 2013, CCP had at least one 4.4GHz Xeon they used to host fleet fights with thousands of players:
https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/message/3917593/#post39...
Why? Because EVE is mostly written in Python, which is both very slow and, thanks to the GIL, effectively single-threaded. It's a fundamentally limiting architecture, but that extra single-core performance let them push it just a little further – which for them was (is?) well worth it.