Um, kmguru. No offense or anything, but some corrections.
Some GeForce cards
do have multiprocessors (one for the even frames, and one for the odd frames - like 2, 4, 6, 8, - 1, 3, 5, 7, etc....)
VIA's KT333 chipset supports 3 gigs of RAM (though no one expect people running servers generally goes about 512)
4GHz processors are not needed. Alot of people don't seem to realize, having processors higher than what they do now (2.5GHz) is not really going to help things much.
Processors mainly handle number cycling and instructions. This is primarily for literal real time performance that is running off a direct bus. If something like a harddrive (that is not direct, it has a spin up and spin down time, and will run on parallel or serial bus) is involved with whatever the current process is that you are doing, it isn't going to matter.
For things like loading times (for like starting your computer with Windows) - it would work faster if you had a 933MHz Pentium 3, with a 15,000 RPM, 3.1ms, Ultra160 harddrive on Adaptec's latest SCSI card (of course, with a 64-bit PCI slot), than a 2200+ Athlon XP with a 7200 RPM harddrive.
Processors going faster than what's out now are really not going to help things much. Because they might just add a little extra speed where it is not needed (because you are going to be limited by things other than your processor). The main thing is, unless you intentionally try to crush your processor (like by running a billion things at once), your accplications are not going to slow down (they will run at a steady rate, and not drop or get clogged up - like your frame rate hitting the floor in a game).
The only time the processor might really matter (in these types of really high clock speed instances), is if you are running like a mainframe server that handles 5% of america's internet traffic. Home users who run anything close to normal accplications don't need to worry about crazy new processor speeds.
I don't know what the future will hold though.
Intel proved they know how to mess things up with their Pentium 4's All they tried to focus on was rushing a processor out the door that had a clock speed faster than anything else. You could use the phrase "too fast, too soon - for its own good" As we've seen in benchmarks, Athlon XP's with lower physical clock speeds outperform P4's in many applications (because the rest of the processor was designed better).
If the industry keeps up the trend "we've got to get the lastest and greatest, the absolute fastest technology, out to the public as soon as possible (mind you, without doing research and testing your beta product thoroughly enough)" - things probably won't go so well.
Plus as that other guy mentioned (looking at microsoft), you can't be the master of everything. If Asus is the best vendor of motherboards, they can't be the master of CD-writers too. Creative Labs might be the best maker of sound products, but they've proven over and over again, they foul up in the video card area.
The industry has been making some not so good design decisions recently (just as can be seen Nvidia is slowly starting to go down hill - they obviously made a mistake releasing their nForce motherboards - and they made too many versions of their GF 4 chipsets - plus to my knowledge, they haven't incoporated 3DFX's anti-aliasing technology into any of their GF chipsets, even though they bought them out a couple of years ago - they have Quincunx AA, and HRAA, but I haven't seen the method 3DFX used to provide full scale AA with so little a performance loss). I'm content to stick with some of my current technology (heck my PC here is running on Windows 98 SE) and am not that eager to go out and buy some of the new stuff that is bound to come out.
For me it has to be a good mix of performance, reliability, and compatibility.
Looks like I started rambling off in this post, but I wanted to mention all of that I guess
