I am not a techno nut nor I care very much for the high ISO noise since in the first place I am not a high ISO shooter.
I do not feel limited shooting at ISO 3200 and it could be because my "high" ISO was ISO 400 whch I did not use very often precisely because of the grain, even using medium format. In my case I consider a godsend having ISO 800 in digital cameras like it is today that a simple pass through any noise reduction software will clean the files.
I read on a daily basis of the poor performance of JPEG files and my experience has been different to the point that I am using JPEG more often than RAW. I consider modern JPEG as excellent files as long as certain precautions are taken and we all know which they are.
The dynamic range of a JPEG could be limited but it has not been a problem for me. I use D-lighting with software and the results have been very pleasant and shadows lend themselves to a better control than highlights allowing easily a 2 stops adjustments without any destructive effect on the file. Highlights can also be controlled but I prefer to get it right in camera during exposure.
Some of my beautiful enlargements have come from original JPEG images that I save to TIFF. Under certain conditions I use RAW but JPEG has cut significantly the time I spend at the computer and I am very pleased with my results.
Obviously, this is only my opinion and others will differ from mine.
The file I include is from folkloric dancers in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shot at ISO 3200. The original is a JPEG.

While some will dismiss this page as they have no choice in the camera format used others, who use JPG as a choice, will react with something akin "who cares, I am limited anyway". Either way you should care. Your JPG is influenced more than you realize. To create a JPG a camera uses the sensor capture. In other words, the raw data the manufacturer does not want you to have (for those who have no capture format choice) is used to create a JPG. The sensor, whatever it is has a dynamic range that will vary. The result is that a JPG camera produced is more deteriorated than a raw capture.

Excuse my ignorance of the term GES shooter, I must have been out to lunch when that one was invented. In all seriousness I certainly do not wish to derail this thread, but you seem to have zeroed in on mfrs.that do not include RAW as denying p-graphers something. That, too, is their choice, if they don't want to buy the product. However, I was talking about those who deliberately choose to shoot JPEG, as has already been pointed out by others here.
This thread is about dynamic range. Nothing else. You need to make it clear that you are not someone in the "RAW camp", as that is what it appears.
If you really visit that awful controversy, the thread is doomed, since to tell the truth, processing RAW is pitting one's own expertise, or lack of it, against the very intelligent people who developed the wonderful technology we have. We have all seen many horrific examples of that. Granted, I may have mistaken your intentions, since I haven't a clue as to what a "GES" person is.

IMO there is a third consideration.

Several years ago I got a D4 and of course had to try it out at high ISO. I do a lot of indoor event shots, so I have ample opportunity to use high ISO. So at one event they were doing a power point presentation with the lights out. Another photographer was doing her thing so I tried a few shots of her at various "sensitivities". I found that up to ISO 50K I could get usable shots (with a lot of PP to mitigate the noise -- the dynamic range of the scene was not a problem). Above ISO 50K the color balance went to hell quickly, and was very difficult to compensate for in PP. Other tests allowed me to get usable shots at ISO 200K, but only if I could have gotten the same shot at ISO 50K.

For most of my indoor work I use ISO 4K-12K (or flash). Excursions to 50K are for emergency purposes only. Excursions to 200k are very rare.

My images are used on the web and in flyers and such things, so high resolution is rarely needed. I can therefore take a noisy image and do some noise processing and downsampling and get acceptable results. This may not work well if your images are going into large prints.