This kind of machine is nice to look at from afar but for most apps trying to get anywhere near a 64 fold speedup on your application on this would mean scrapping the code base and doing 1 failed rewrite, followed by 1 marginally successful one, taking up ruinous amounts of calendar time and engineering resources.
But of course it's diferent now than in 2005, because today we can't do any better.
I was skeptical so I downloaded some SPECint benchmark results ( https://www.spec.org/benchmarks.html ) of T1s, Power and Xeon, compared them and thought "mh, probably a bad idea" and then I ended up having to invest quite some time to convince my management to keep using "normal" servers.
On the other hand, later, I had a bit of fun hearing stories from other colleagues telling me how slow those T1-machines were once they started running on them their normal DB-workloads => after months of everybody complaining about bad performance, everybody went back to normal servers => a lot of time & money (& nerves) spent for nothing.
Normal IT politics, I guess.
Lunch driven procurement.
In all seriousness, someone is trying to make an app to benchmark software[0]. You might be interested in that thread. Thanks for the link.
I'm pretty sure double the core count at 90% of the speed will get you better performance in _a lot_ of scenarios.
And we'd still have be able to make processors with lots of slow threads of course for applications where that's cost or power effective, that's comparatively very easy.
These days however, the difference between fastest core performance on low-core processors and fastest core performance on high-core processors is rather a lot less than 50% (Comparing like for like, eg AMD to AMD and Intel to Intel).