I would like to question some of the basic here.
Do any 6800 6900 or 6c/8c ryzen users actually miss st perf?
Yes they can look at synthetic bm and be dissatisfied or miss 10 fps in some old dx9 game on their 120hz monitor - but is it actually a real world practical problem detectable in a blind test?
As i can tell we are software, ssd io and throughput limited like 99.99% of the time. And that certainly goes for video editing that you have a need for. You are cpu throughput limited if anything.
An 1800x or 6900 offered far more than your 4790k where it matters and can actually be felt. How it fares in gaming is more or less down to if the engines uses more cores and if there is a need for the perf in the first place. Its not about the cpu or who made it, but age of game engine.
We have a 1700 that on a 90 usd mb can be oc to near 6900 levels for a meager 310 usd or so. Perfect for video editing and what not.
What are people looking for?
Yes you are probably right. It got the wrong name. But imo enthusiasts can - unlike when we act as normal consumers - make informed choices.
In my ears its sometimes excuses and nonsense we hear after Ryzen launched. Like eg the need for number of pci lanes or mem chanels. So the inforned enthusiasts use their knowledge to make it more complicated.
Now when amd 16c is bringing all that to the table at hedt segment it kind of loses its importance and is out of the discussion.
Then we are back to the +/÷ 10% st perf argument.
For 10c cpu.
It makes no sense.
For me. Intel simply needs to change their pricing radically from now. Its that simple. Not that i would do it if i was Intel
but as consumer its pretty much straightforward. Except for under ryzen r5 their product stack is simply irrelevant. Even for avx2 loads ryzen is faster/$. Doesnt work for me. New pentium is only option at the low end and is far superior to amd products here imo but thats it.
I hope they cut their prices for the new lineup. 6c 12t for usd 320 then the 1800x will come under pressure.
We want price war !