Let me put this into perspective.
The average PC user has very little knowledge on what is inside the PC. It is all what it can do nd how fast it can do it. Hence Apple still exists. Their hardware is evident that it isnt really all that good. Recent years, after ridding of PowerPC for Intel, the hardware is more or less in line with any standard PC. But it is the software behind it that makes it intriguing for the average user. Average PC from Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc are no better. You get sub par equipment at semi decent prices. But it is good enough to run what they need it to do. We can all talk about best of the best, reduced lithography, more transistors etc etc etc, but you need to take account for the fact that the software needs to be well developed around the architecture of the processor.
For instance, you can have a poorly programmed game, so on lower technology, it can struggle. More raw power needed to execute the poorly done coding and most cisc are not entirely capable of out of order execution. The more powerful the cpu, the better for such games. But if a game is very well coded, it could run on even lower tech, without much sacrifice on performance and looks. Good example of these is the game Half Life 2 vs Resident Evil 4. RE4 is close to prettyness of HL2 but it was made for console (proprietary hardware, usually slower in capabilities of gaming PC). On PC, it ran poorly, even on higher end PC's with much more powerful processors than console, but the more advanced pc, the better it ran, while still retaining similar visuals as console version (exclude the fact pc can do higher res than console thus it may look nicer than console due to more pixels on screen). HL2 on the other hand was clearly well coded and I remember running the game on medium, with an old Sempron 2500, which is clearly a weak processor. But in the end, the game looked very good and it ran very well.
They could build lets say a gaming console or a Mac style PC (more similar to G5 days) and have a. Well coded OS designed around the hardware, and they will find they can get much better performance with a weaker CPU in a task clearly designed for that hardware, vs a more powerful one that isnt. It was evident when CNews did the article I posted a while back of a Elbrus 4c at 700mhz vs an Intel Core i7 760. The 760 was clearly better at random tasks like 7zip or such. But as soon as they ran gost, which is coded towards elbrus architecture, it ran significantly better.
Thing is, it was created for industrial equipment and specialization. So all software pretaining tk its use will also be specialized. Elbrus 8C seems to be the other case where is will be used for more types of applications like server, hpc, workstations use. After? Well, I heard about some sort of IC-16 or whatever, so maybe a 16 core processor theoretically around 10nm (on rbth.com). Since Russia has obtained the technology to build lithography technology closer towards 10nm, then that means in the future they may have the ability to do less than 20nm themselves. But regardless, pure speculation as who knows what is in plans. T-Platform is a private company and they own Baikal electronics, so with them aiming at theirnown cpu development (starting processors are ARM. Do not know what they plan afterwards) but in the end, they will look at what will make them money and they have been quite successful so far.
But yes, they need to expand their own development and export it more to other countries. Maybe get India and Egypt involved in CPU design and development as this will help pull these countries together and talant pool.