The current 8-core system is two 4-core CPUs, both with their own FSB. It seems that one FSB per 4 cores seems as high as Intel is willing to take that ratio at the moment, with current memory controller architecture. I wouldn't say there's a natural limitation as such, as FSB/HTT/memory controller/whatever interfaces are always going to have less bandwidth than on-die communication but as long as they can saturate the RAM there's not that much to worry about. I think currently we're not seeing FSB saturation having too big an impact with quad-core CPUs doing stuff like rendering, just that the other cores aren't as well put to use in a lot of programs that claim multi-CPU scaling. On that note, if it's the kind of software that'll run on an 8-way server then it's well threaded and you shouldn't have too much bother. To be honest, overall, we don't really know yet. Average Joe does not own a quad-core CPU and even Steven Gamer only has a quad-core if he's at the bleeding edge (the blood comes from the wallet!) so there are very very few people who'd use an 8-core desktop PC. There'll come a point where you have to say "this job is too big for one [desktop] PC" and split it up or run it on something bigger or dedicated.
In short: "Hmm, hah? Hum."