I don't think I need that many.
Without A LOT more information, we cannot tell you if you need that many either. I can tell you this...
When SQL Server writes data to a table, several things happen (and they try to happen as quickly as possible). Suppose you update data in a table. SQL Server will write data to a log file (indicating that an update is about to occur). Then SQL Server will update the data, and finally, SQL Server writes to the log file that the update is complete. These things need to happen sequentially in case the sql server box goes poof (for example a power outage). When your data file and log file are on the same physical disk, the hardware must spin the disk and position the read/write head to the location of the log file, write the data, reposition to the data file, write the data, reposition to the log file again, and write some more data. That's a lot of disk activity for such a simple operation. When your data and log file are on separate disks, there is less hardware activity and therefore better performance.
Similar things happen with the TempDB. In your T-SQL code, whenever you use a temp table and/or table variable, stuff gets written to TempDB. If TempDB is on the same physical disk as your user table, you will have more disk activity than if you have TempDB on a separate disk.
Also, since most servers have multiple CPU's you can have concurrent queries running, so having multiple files for your TempDB can speed things up. By putting these multiple files on separate disks, you will certainly speed up certain queries with the database.
Do you need that many files? I don't know, but you should be aware that removing them will likely slow things down. The amount of decreased performance may not be noticeable, but then again... it might.
-George
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
My Blogs
SQLCop
"The great things about standards is that there are so many to choose from." - Fortune Cookie Wisdom