GCC -- 100% (46/46 features implemented)
Clang -- 96% (44/46 features implemented)
Intel C++ -- 74% (34/46 features implemented)
MSVC -- 65% (30/46 features implemented)
IBM XLC++ -- 50% (23/46 features implemented)
EDG eccp -- 39% (18/46 features implemented)
Embarcadero C++ Builder -- 35% (16/46 features implemented)
Sun/Oracle C++ -- 22% (10/46 features implemented)
HP aCC -- 20% (9/46 features implemented)
Digital Mars C++ -- 17% (8/46 features implemented)
[*] This does not count the features in Clang SVN/3.3 as it is not currently released. This will be 100% then. It is also excluding Concepts which is on that list, but is not part of C++11.
So according to this, the Intel and Microsoft compilers are ahead of the proprietary compilers in terms of C++11 support and the open source compilers are/will be feature complete.
Its only hard right now because we lack the programming language to make it easy for us. I have no doubt that as time goes on a programming language will come along that will make multi-threading desktop apps very common and easy.
On the other hand, video codec divide pixel space in a given frame for that very reason (parallelism).
Video decode is mostly done on dedicated hardware, but could be done in GPGPU, hence massively parrallelisable .
Actually, anything that could benefit from GPGPU will use hundreds of threads (mostly, scientific calculations and image/video processing).
I am surprised this BS is still spread around. Compression is inherently serial. It can not be done on GPU efficiently, this is the reason for dedicated hardware! All you can do is run image transforms and motion estimation in parallel. But that doesn't give you much as the heavy part is the decompression.