Business users sitting in their cubicles don't do anything more exciting that a spreadsheet with a bunch of pivot tables. Enterprise apps put their resources on the server and use the client as a dumb interface. These users don't need cpu.

Many home users never use anything more complex than Office or browsers. Even people who play games get the work shifted to the gpu.

In all cases, including yours, if an application isn't correctly written to take advantage of multi-threading, isn't bottlenecked by memory, disk, or the nature of the work (ie. the task isn't parallelizable), or any other of a thousand factors that will kill the advantages of multiple cpus and cores.

Processing problems that are solved by throwing more cpu at them are a very small class of problem for the average user these days - which you (or anyone else) can easily prove for yourself by leaving a task manager window open on the performance tab and watch the cpus and cores spend most of their time idling.

I don't doubt that you need the processing power you do, just that you are probably in a minority (and as an aside, why are you using cpu for processing anyway when you could be using multiple gpus to do the job? Out of interest, what tasks are you performing, and what hardware/procedures do you use to optimise that if you are cpu bound?).

If I were given a choice between a commodity motherboard with the world's fastest cpus on it, or a commodity motherboard with the highest possible amount of ram full populated, I'd pick the ram - cpu hasn't been the bottleneck for the vast majority of tasks for years now. If anything, cpus are overspecc'ed for most people.