The bottleneck in most video and photo editing is the human, not the CPU. Much of Photoshop is not well threaded, and generally tends to favor single core performance over threaded, along with most of the aspects of the video editing process. It's rendering video previews and final output that tend to stress the CPU and maybe a few Photoshop filters.
It almost seems to me that there is a misconception here that having a lot of software open is going to somehow put a greater stress on the CPU. It's not. Heavy loading like that is very application specific, and it's even specific to certain aspects of that application and not going to happen the whole time that software is open. It's very few tasks that are going to be able to fully utilize the CPU, and with a single, well threaded task, you can use up the whole of your available CPU resources. You don't need to look for a bunch of ways to use up the CPU, you just need a single task designed to use such wide execution resources. A perfect example is CPU benchmarking software. It doesn't do any practical work other than to measure equipment against an arbitrary metric, but it's a simple example of a single program that can easily use up all CPU resources. When it comes to having a bunch of software open that is not well threaded, you're going to max out a single thread, maybe even 2 - 4 if the software has some threading going on, but only in the program you have running focused in the foreground, and only for the duration of time your software is heavily loaded.
Another aspect you're overlooking is, Ryzen tends to suffer a lower IPC when overclocked. Because it can boost threads further in short bursts than most overclocks can achieve, and because it's boost is disabled when overclocking, unless you're regularly loading many of your overclocked cores at a rate higher than the boost would have, you could have a net loss in overall system responsiveness, along with a higher rate of power consumption. Overclocking Ryzen tends to be a compromise. If you can't get your chip to overclock higher than it's normal boost, you end up losing performance in some cases. That's the reason the non-X parts are such a good value, because they often overclock higher than their default boost on all cores, but they are still binned and 3.8 is not an unheard of max speed to see out of them.
Something else to consider, if you really plan to leave that much software open regularly, and load up that many tabs in a web browser (web browsers aren't models of efficiency), you should consider putting more RAM into the system. 16 GB is plenty if you're just playing one game at a time and doing some streaming, but if you need Photoshop open, Excel, several dozen tabs, chat software, etc., et al, you don't want to waste system time for lack of enough memory to keep everything from page swapping. You're not going to care what CPU you have if your need of RAM exceeds what the system is equipped with.
Just because your current system is having issues on the web, doesn't mean it's all the fault of your current system. Yes, it may be a slow system, but there are many, many badly built websites that use designs like perpetual scrolling and nasty habits such as being nothing more than fully animated ad-servers, that will bring even the best machine you can buy to a slow crawl. Web browsers can only do so much with content, and once you hit the limit for their threading and tab separation, you end up with a few cores being fully loaded and the browser responsiveness grinding to a halt. I doubt we will see single threaded CPU performance overcome bad web design anytime soon, and even if we did, the bad pages will probably just get worse.
and what's even worst I still can't decide begween 1800x and 2600x 
.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram