Where do you get elitism from? No one has ever said that people should have new/high end systems and AVX as a requirement does not mean that.
Then it’s a good thing that AVX has been in CPUs for over a decade so people can continue to use old systems or buy used stuff.
Once again, I’m not seeing elitism on my side so much as ignorance (seemingly willful at this point) on the other side.
Again, you don’t have to. If you don’t have enough understanding of the topic to make accurate points about it, maybe you should spend more time learning about it before commenting.
Yes, and all the mainline chipsets have had AVX for nearly a decade. To get one without it you really have to be going out of your way to find it with the knowledge that by excluding it you can get a higher clock speed for a lower price.
No, the fact that there is a workaround that one person has said works for them shows that some chips can handle the workload without the AVX instructions, but we don’t have any actual data on what kind of impact it has (particularly on min spec systems, where it actually matters).
Yes, it is great that there is a workaround. Unless there’s some evidence that dropping AVX support wouldn’t hurt users in the min spec range, you’re unlikely to see multiple clients created when the only people who don’t have AVX support are intentionally going out of their way to avoid it.
Again, you don’t need a new or high-end system to have this support; you just have to have purchased a system with any mainline CPU in the last decade or so.
Making the choice to buy hardware that is missing hardware level functionality is always a risk, whether it’s the CPU instruction set or the DirectX support.
The lesson here is that it’s often more valuable to prioritize having hardware support for more functionality than it is to get a higher clock speed (something that rarely actually benefits you).