Threads and cores are two different things imho; having hundreds of threads doesn't imply you need many cores.
Honestly, the fact you think this means you are a good 15 years behind the curve right now - threads have been a pretty big deal for some time and far from 'bling bling'.
Well, it seems like he isn't using threading at all, so that's the 15 years bit.
But yeah... I was kinda still thinking in line with what Hodgman said as my mental setup is basically the same where 'working threads' == 'cores' (more or less) so I tend to get sloppy with my wording.
I believe it's actually pretty hard to usefully use more than 1-2 cores full time.
Arrange your data correctly and things flow nicely; when combined with a job system you can scale pretty well.
(There is a degree of 'hard' in doing that... but.. again... see '15 years' comment as people have been working on and solving this problem for a while; PS3 was the poster boy for 'jobs', and today the 'jobs' mentality extends beyond the CPU cores and to GPU compute work too.)