Even for video editing the math might change a bit since modern video editing apps can leverage GPU for rendering.
That said, I agree with the folks who say that AMD releasing desktop chips built on Zen 2 with built in GPU cannot come fast enough.
This used to be a thing where the Motherboard maker would sell the Board + Mobile Chip soldered. Not sure if you could still do that.
And it is not like Zen 2 Desktop APU aren't coming. Just a tad later. I think the current roadmap from AMD is pretty solid. Although I do wish their sales and marketing execution to be much better.
I also think there would be a market for a 4900H in a desktop form factor but I don't think AMD will make one.
I run OpenBSD on an i5-5200U I picked up a few years ago (probably 2015, or early 2016). It serves as my router and runs a bunch of services for me. It lives in my basement next to the fiber line coming in from the road.
I wouldn't be surprised if an AMD -H part comes to market soon in this category.
Buy a serial-over-USB patch cable; connect it from the NAS to your laptop; open an STTY emulator on the laptop. No boot graphics needed.
When I was much younger, and on much more of a budget, these "computers of theseus" were my main rigs for a long time. The meta-game was to try to see how few parts you had to swap out from piecemeal upgrade to piecemeal upgrade.
I still do it like this, despite having plenty of money to spend on hardware. if it ain't broke...
1. The AMD R3-3300X is neck and neck with the Intel i5-9600K in most productivity benchmarks in the GN test suite.[0] The 9600K is a step up from the 9400 you're looking at, so you could likely do an R3 build. With the clock differences, it's likely that the R3 would pull ahead of the 9400. The processor is $120 MSRP, but not available just yet. Also, you'll likely want to pair it with a B550 motherboard. Nevertheless, with a cheapest-available graphics card, this should be price-competitive with an i5-9400. The future upside is huge, as you could get a beast R9-3950X in a couple years when the price has come down a lot.
2. The AMD R5-1600AF is actually a Zen+ part, and MSRPs at $85. The theme of the entire 3300X review video I linked is to get one of these if you can. Availability is limited and resellers are marking up significantly. AMD is committed to providing more, though.
3. Depending on where your price/performance threshold is, dropping to an R5-2600 brings your price difference to $26 ($224 vs $250 for CPU+mobo and CPU+mobo+graphics, respectively). This should edge out the 1600AF mentioned above, and regularly beat the i5-9400.[1][2]
Of the options above, I'd lean toward the R3-3300X. This gives future expansion to a 16-core monster that is a chart topper for productivity workloads. You cannot make that jump with Intel, because their competitor is the 10980XE on a different chipset than the i5. Additionally, Ryzen 3000 and B550 supports PCIe gen 4, for double the bandwidth. Again, this is a future expansion option that you don't get with Intel.
My preference is definitely subjective, and there are good reasons to go for the Intel i5, first among them that you can buy the system today, instead of in a month.
[0] GN 3300x review: https://youtu.be/NM2fFpzPKPg?t=1063
[1] Cheapest i5: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/B3pFtp
[2] Cheapest R5 2600: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HttVyk
Additionally, the 9400F seems to struggle to even beat the 8400. Their composite scores are insignificantly different. Perhaps this is why a 9400 is cheaper than an 8400....
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryze...
For a PC, though, using ARM can be tough if you're trying to use Windows. I'm not sure how many Windows programs have ARM binaries.
I assume swapping my GTX 760 with a latest generation card would give me better gaming performance.
Most games will get a huge bump just with a new GPU - You'd do well with an RTX 2070, or the next generation AMD GPUs (speculating - but there's a lot of momentum on that front).
That being said - LinusTechTips did a head to head benchmark comparison between the i7-7700k (the latest my Z170 chipset can handle) and this 3300X. Bottom line - the 3300X is an insanely good value for performance.
Whether it'll make an immediate difference to you is game-dependent, but if you play a lot of AAA titles I'd definitely look to upgrade soon.
That said, there are cpu heavy games out there, like MMOs with high on screen player counts, simulations like Cities Skylines or flight sims, so your mileage may vary.
That hasn't been the case for a looong time. But to answer your question, they are much faster than anything from Intel at comparable pricing:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-amd-r...
"The results here are immediately interesting. Despite costing less than every other CPU represented, the 3100 manages to tie the Core i5 9600K in single-core performance and outperform the Ryzen 2600 and 2700X by around 12 per cent. The 3300X is even more impressive, with a single-core score that exceeds the Core i7 9700K and only falls behind the Ryzen 9 3900X and Core i9 9900K."
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2589?vs=2250
That's a $199 Intel 6-core part against a $120 AMD 4-core part. Anandtech hasn't bothered to benchmark a 4-core 9th-generation Intel CPU yet, despite the fact that they hit retail a year ago.
Other do compare against that CPUs and it's still much better to buy the Ryzen then the Intel ones (at least if you go headless or if you will put one a dedicated GPU anyway).
I recommend you see that video for the comparison you're asking for.
