Yes, but the mass extinction of the dinosaurs was not necessary, nor were some of the ones since then.
How do you know? Were dinosaurs more prone to intelligence than mammals?
Then there's other events, like ice-ages, which would've held back technological progress, and also the issue that any time in the past 10,000 years had human history gone a little differently we'd be, well, thousands of years more advanced then we currently are.
Ice ages also gave a huge advantage to those who can make fire, clothing, and migrate. Maybe also improve sociability to share body heat. For mammals, the extra cold means food has to be burnt for heat -- and it matters little if it is burnt by special food burning cells or the expensive, energy-hungry brain. It would be a different story if the ice age buried some cities or libraries or whatever.
Had the Greeks and Romans grok'd a few key bits of mathematics, the renaissance might have started within their empires and they would've avoided some of the downsides due to the technological boom it would've provided (crucially, without coordinate geometry the calculus results they were looking at didn't generalize to other pursuits. Get calculus and you do optics, get optics and you've got microscopes, steam engines, metallurgy and all the tools needed to understand modern science).
Sure, and had bonobos invented agriculture, we'd have millions of years more technology. Had Earth's early life-forms invented multicellularity we could be billions of years more advanced. I'm not being sarcastic; it's just that I don't know enough of the various pre-requisites for intelligence to know how well we did compared to the average case, nor specifically whether the mass extinctions were a net positive or negative to the development of intelligence and technological civilization.