Pontiac was telling us this over two decades ago. Get with the times, man!I'm still not sold on the "wider is better" argument.
More seriously thought, it's obvious you could push the concept too far (see Netburst or Bulldozer with clock speeds) and not see the kind of performance returns that Apple/AMD have gotten from making their own architectures a little bit wider than previously, but part of it is going to be creating a balanced design the keeps utilization of all of your hardware as high as possible.
It isn't just that "wider is better" in some kind of isolation, but likely as a result of improvements to other parts of the chip that make it able to keep more ALUs, etc. fed with instructions and data. If you don't go wider, you're just leaving potential performance on the table and holding back the other parts of the chip that can perform better, but offer no real benefit if they're being bottlenecked by something else.
Start looking at all of the improvements in things like branch prediction over the years along with the much larger caches that most chips have and tell me that those wouldn't make a wider design a good idea. I'm sure if you would have tried to do that before all of those improvements occurred the wider design would be pointless without the ability to feed the additional execution units. Wider just happens to create a more balanced CPU and that's what makes wider better.