It's their perf per watt chart that is irrelevant for gaming.
Honestly, performance per watt is probably the least important consideration for a desktop computer.
Running a farm of these things? Maybe perf per watt makes sense to save some money. Mobile device running on battery? I totally get it.
But surely, the difference in cost for one person running it in their house, or a few hundred people in an office... like who cares? The cost savings won't even be noticeable on the power bill.
Performance per watt is also a good indicator of noise levels.
So 3090 price for 3060 performance, doesn't sound very promising. I wish we could exploit those gpus easier for compute, but compute with metal is simply not there, at least for now.
It's not priced like a 3090 though? There's an entire computer there and the CPU performance is no slouch, even if the GPU may be lacking for what gamers want today.
I'm pretty sure the gamers who're always rocking high-end video cards are a small minority of PC gamers, anyway, even if we only count "serious" gamers (not just Candy Crush or whatever) to remove that potential objection.
A lot more probably find a best-bang-for-the-buck midrange card and hang on to it for ~3 years, before upgrading to another midrange card.
So even if it "only" reaches 3060 levels of performance in games, I think many people would be okay with that. Reality will likely place it somewhere between a 3060 and the 3090.