Where are the bottlenecks?
Allegedly Mr Intel says "a constrained programming model that could allow for simpler cores with higher frequencies" just after he says "If I suddenly gave you a terahertz processor and the same memory system you wouldn't get dramatic speedups."
I can't see how those two connect.
If your bottlenck is memory system performance (ie if the CPU has to wait for the memory system), it doesn't matter what's in the CPU core (RISC or CISC), because the memory system is the bottleneck. Nor does it matter whether the programming model is massively multithreaded or some other variant. The memory system is the bottleneck. Intel aren't in the memory business any more, are they? So they're blaming their suppliers?
In fact in certain cases, where the bottleneck is the bandwidth of the instruction fetches (it does happen), you could argue that reverting to CISC might be worth a look, because with CISC you get more work done per instruction fetch, although predicated instructions with RISC already help this to a limited extent.
Not expecting CISC (e.g. VAX) to re-emerge in 64bit guise just yet though.
Maybe Intel could just put lots more cache on the CPU, like they already have to do with Itanic to get anything approaching reasonable performance out of it?
But then if it's an x86 instruction set in a multicore chip you've got all the fun of managing cache coherency across a multisocket system (it's hard enough with mutliple cores in a single socket).
Still, it must be doable in some way, there are 64way and higher x86 SMP systems around. Whether anyone actually uses them, I don't know, but HPQ allegedly have them.
Oh Intel, what a mess you've got yourself into with this x86 addiction, and your unsuccessful attempts to kick the habit.