i'm listing their conclusions in the terms they set, and your quite wrong, if a CPU by measuring it in multiple relevant aspects is better and cheaper, or around the same price, then it is the best value if another CPU is better but much more expensive.
For example the 8700K is in every way better than the 2600, however it costs nearly twice as much, the 2600 in the round is better than anything in its price range and not that much worse than the 8700K, in that its rightfully categorised as the "Best Value All-rounder"
Its better than the 8400, not as good as the 8700K but priced like the 8400.
I'll put it another way, you wouldn't say its not fair because its not ignoring the cost and not ignoring everything that makes the opposition good, right?
If you ignore the cost and everything that anyone does on their computer other than playing games on a 1080TI then all you ever get is 8700K.
I'm not looking for a £350 CPU to power my GTX 1070 when the Ryzen 2600 or
as it happens Ryzen 1600 does the job just as well as the 8700K, i also have hobbies that i use my computer for that do not involve gaming, there fore, because i'm unwilling to spend £350 on a CPU i'm looking at a more value orientated CPU, and because i do many different things with my computer including gaming i'm looking for the best All-rounder, 'that' when i bought it was the Ryzen 1600, its now the Ryzen 2600.
This CPU cost me £150, with the Motherboard it was £225, the same price as the 8600K on its own and the Ryzen 1600 is better in Blender and the 10 other 3D applications i use than the 8600K, oh i did not "back the wrong horse"