To be honest, your CPU requirements seem very low and you also seem to be very much on the patient side.
I mean, maybe? I have
some understanding of how newer hardware works (and a lot of software just doesn't).
Things can still improve over time. The other day I ran an emulator from the early (2006) era:
This was ass on Pentium 4. The Phenom II X4 instantly caught up but nowhere near this level. Never ran emus on FX though.
I finally updated this emu to the Halloween build on Qt and it is
a world of difference even for this Ryzen. Do you see it?
It's difficult to illustrate but that's worst case 60FPS. Do you think the FX would see the same improvement?
It has all the instructions. Only a 3-4% change? You know the difference would be much bigger.
One serious issue of racking the FX is loss of purpose (and my space heater) until I have an accelerator.
This is how it compares:
It's also why I run the Athlon 64. (´・ω・`) Would the 7000/9000 series behave like either of these? Probably not.
There's no defending the indefensible and this is a quote that applies with perfection to the utterly failed FX lineup.
You weren't here and don't understand the purpose it served. FX was a fair stop gap and life extension to aging AM3 desktops while waiting for Ryzen 3000.
It ran
everything without complaint. In 2018 my aging Phenom and the sudden appeal of VR gaming pushed me to the convenience of FX and it was amazing.
Finally in 4GHz territory, could open very LARGE maps that never opened before, maxxed out RX580 performance, desktop streaming, etc.
It was prime for desktop gaming, video meetings, Unity VR development, 3D renders, virtual servers, containers, even CPU heavy package compiler jobs.
The only flaws were age and the crap softwares that made Phenom II hard lock. FX shared those vulnerabilities and very few made it into Ryzen. Still a massive win.
Some games are straight up doomed and I get that. Modern desktop gacha is always ~40ish or 120FPS solid. Never any middle ground even with lower settings.
Some VR dipped badly after engine updates. This was noted before my jump to FX. Ryzen brought some performance back but 45-60 was the limit with my card.
Ryzen doesn't seem to fully agree with the RX580 either. Even after all this time I still don't understand how or why.
But just pitching in for encoding, go with the A2000 all the way. Full pro suite, no restrictions apply. I'm having a blast with mine. Excellent SFF.
Keeping an eye on it and others. I have a feeling one of these will break rank very soon and kick off a sudden opportunity.
My favorite little thing about AM5 vs AM4 is theres no more super weird usb issues. Nice little bonus.
This could be a very big deal. No one likes fumbling around with multiple receivers after reboots.
some AM5 mainboard have more nvme slots and less sata slots
This is a better design choice. Ryzen was my intro to M.2 NVMe but also the weirdness of shutting off sata ports that I'll very likely never use anyway.
Every creator I talk to about storage wants to load up on M.2 drives. This seems to be a common sense take, more fast = more better.
Again, the normies aren't aware of PCI-E lanes, what they are and how we're limited on non-TR chips. We also need boards with smarter design choices.
If the popular board offers 8 sata that nobody uses and half the ports switch off when adding another M.2, maybe it's best to just not offer that much sata.
I have 6800xt card and playing at QHD I dont see a game very lacking so 5800X3D is better now ? I also do game development with Unreal Engine but problem that prices of new am5 components are real expensive
The 5900X and 5800X3D are a fork in the road in extremely competitive territory. If you prefer gaming performance, the 5800X3D is ideal.
If you're a developer or streamer, you chose those dozen cores for those reasons and likely don't care about X3D's offerings on AM4.
