That is why we and most Western engine manufacturers use single crystal turbine blades. They last longer. Because the creep degradation sets in much slower.
But the high inlet temperature is not only specific to engines employing single crystal blades. Yet It is easier to attain higher TIT values with single crystals. But just with single crystal blades the engine parts would still melt if not cooled and ceramic coating applied. Better crystals means higher top temperature threshold with cooling and coating. So they are interdependent on each other in a way.
It really boils down to the normal distribution vis a vis the factor(s) you are changing.
Old post i plot the normal distribution conceptually:
https://defencehub.live/threads/propulsion-systems.3/page-57#post-111270
So if you keep some relevant TIT the same between:
- S(X) (newest/best),
- DS(X) (intermediate)
- Non-DS(X) (oldest/worst)
and then apply exact same cooling mitigations, manufacturing quality, design etc.... i.e hold everything else ceterus paribus in this multivariate situation and only play with grain boundary prevalence (where S(X) achieves as "n=0", DS(X) as "small n" and non-DS(X) as "high n")
...you will get three different normal distributions on their failures commensurate to their grain boundary prevalence (and thus problem initiation + growth rate, all of which contribute to the normal distribution position w.r.t time).
Similarly if you keep S(X) the same alongside cooling....you can now use TIT as the factor to change (to increase it, take a hit on the normal distribution spread and see where the tradeoff is now optimal w.r.t some red line you have for the X% failure rate you set).
i.e for each failure rate, the TIT (required to cause it with same amount of time seen) will be higher for S(X) relative to DS(X) etc.