This is certainly imortant, but not for normal users. Most apps would have no idea what to do with 80 cores. As it is, most users benefit only minimally from a second core. Multiple cores/processors only really shine when a program uses many threads to accomplish one processor-intensive task. This is mostly seen with multimedia.

The number of threads needs to be at least equal to the number of cores to really milk the processor for all its worth.

Not many programs benefit much from multiple cores. Even though Safari, for example, uses many threads (as you can see in Activity Monitor), all of its really CPU-intensive parts are confined to a single thread (and thus, a single core). This is obvious when you have multiple pages loading at once, because Safari will completely freeze up until they're all done. It doesn't even give each window/tab its own thread, and it certainly doesn't split every individual page rendering into multiple threads.

Also, there are diminishing returns. Even Intel says 4 cores will only be 70% faster than 2. There's almost always some overhead involved in splitting a routine into multiple threads

So before you drown yourself in your own drool, think carefully about what it means for you. I'm not even sure Photoshop uses 80 threads for most operations (although Asobe will surely bend over backwards to make sure it does when the time is right).

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some drool to mop up.