ARC rendering of DNG Files of photos shot with the new Canon Powershot G16 with "PSE V10 + CR 6.4.1" and with "PSE V13 + CR 8.6"

Question

Because (for reasons which  are not relevant to my questions):  I can not reasonably migrate to the newest PSE Versions and I am more or less stuck for a couple of years to the use PSE V10. I am therefore looking for a relatively efficient solution to process/edit (a small percentage) of the RAW Files of my new/future camera(s) with the combination of PSE V10 and CR 6.4.1 (according to my understanding PSE V10 does not support CR 8.6 – PSE V10 does not even allow me to import RAW Files of new cameras into the PSE catalog).
I was hoping that the DNG Converter could be a good solution for me. I was intending
to convert the RAW Files of my new camera (and of my future new cameras) with an up-to-date version of the DNG converter,
import the .dng Files into PSE V10
and then look-at (and then for some few of them: edit) the DNG Files with the combination of PSE V10 and CR 6.4.1.
However, I got recently the impression, that the only Camera Profile of CR 6.4.1 that renders reasonably well the DNG Files of my new Canon Powershot G16 compact camera is the “Adobe Standard” Camera Profile.  In my tests with the combination of PSE V10 and ACR 6.4.1, the rendering of these DNG Files with other CR 6.4.1 Profiles (e.g. the “Camera Faithful” Profile) is (regarding colors and brightness/contrast) really ugly and (for a non-expert  like me) more or less unusable (while  the rendering of the same DNG File with the “Camera Faithfull” Profile of the combination of CR 8.6 + PSE V13 is quite reasonable).
May I please ask the following questions to somebody who is familiar with DNG and CR?
Do my observations (i.e. ugly rendering of Canon Powershot G16 photos with the “Camera Faithful Profile” of ACR 6.4.1) correspond to what DNG experts should and are expecting?
What is the probable reason of the ugly rendering of the “Camera Faithful” Profile of CR 6.4.1? Does the DNG converter not include a G16-specific “Camera Faithful” profile in the DNG file?
Or do you think, that I made something wrong and that I am the one to blame for the ugly rendering with the “Camera Faithful” Profile used by CR 6.4.1? If that’s the case: what did I probably do wrong and what can I do better?
Do you think that with the combination of PSE V10 and CR 6.4.1, I will have similar problems with the DNG conversion of Raw files of future cameras like the follow-on to the Nikon D5300 or D7100 (which I will probably like to buy once available)? Or do you think that the problems that I encountered with the Powershot G16 photos are unlikely to happen with most other new camwras?A lot of thanks in advance for your answers.
In case you might wish to look at the typical rendering of one of my DNG Files (created with Version 8.6.0.254 of the DNG converter)  of a Canon Powershot G16 .cr2 photo, I uploaded at  https://www.dropbox.com/l/T3LJyZWkBZpcKkNe8S8ufr
following screenshots:
rendering with PSE V10 and CR 6.4.1 with the “Adobe Standard” Camera Profile” – looks OK
rendering with PSE V10 and CR 6.4.1 with the “Camera Faithful” Profile – looks ugly.
I did not create screenshots of the ugly rendering by CR 6.4.1 with other Camera Formats..
rendering with PSE V13 and CR 8.6 with the “Adobe Standard” Camera Profile – looks OK
rendering with PSE V13 and CR 8.6 with the “Camera Faithful” Profile – looks OK
screenshot of the unedited jpg. File created by the camera - looks OK 

Answer 1

Thank You very much to all of You: in alphanumerical  sequence to 99jon, to R Kelly and to ssprengel. You spoiled me with the Information in your answers. Thank You very much for it.
Based on your answers I will first try the probably simplest solution: the download of ACR 6.7.
If that will not work for me, I will try/investigate  something else, that, if I interpret your suggestions correctly is the following: create with the combination of PSE 13 and ACR 8.6 profiles that I will try to use with the combination of PSE 10 and ACR 6.7 or 6.4. That is an idea that I was not at all aware of and that I owe to you.
All that is quite new to me, and I can therefore imagine that I will come back to you and ask for detailed suggestions or directions.
A Detail: it is on the same machine / same Windows-occurence that I have installed the combination of "PSE V10 + ACR 6.4" and the combination of "PSE V13 and ACR 8.6".
1) The main reason why I can not use for my main real-life "productive" PSE Catalog the combination of "PSE V13 and ACR 8.6" is the lack of Support of/by the 32-bit mode "KODAK Digital ROC Professional" Filter/Plug-in in a PSE V13 Environment.  I need and will need that filter for a couple of years for the retouching/restoration of thousands  scanned Versions of my old slides that have a strong color-cast.  I am also using the 32-bit mode "Kodak Digital GEM Professional" Filter for a strong noise reduction in the scanned Versions of my old slides (but I can imagine, that I could find good 64-bit mode alternatives to the GEM Filter).
2) In addition I have with the V12 and V13 PSE Editors,  for a lot of my photos files, problems with the wrong Dates/Times assigned by the V12/V13 PSE Editors to new file containing a new/edited version of my  Foto files.....
But these 2 previous items are other stories/problems  that I would like and shoud keep separate.
Thank You again for your wonderfull help.
Robert