Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ati/NVIDIA amd/intel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ati/NVIDIA amd/intel?

    Hello!

    I'm new in those forums, so if this post doesn't belong here let me know and I'll post it were it belongs.

    I wan't to build a new computer from scratch, and one of it's mainly purposes will be gaming, and I'm very lost looking the best linux compatible hardware.

    The most simple questions, ati or nvidia? intel or amd?

    I guess, but it's just a supposition that the best option will be nvidia for the graphic card, but what about motherboard?

    Thank you very much

    PD. Sorry my bad english

  • #2
    Originally posted by Serjor View Post
    Hello!

    I'm new in those forums, so if this post doesn't belong here let me know and I'll post it were it belongs.

    I wan't to build a new computer from scratch, and one of it's mainly purposes will be gaming, and I'm very lost looking the best linux compatible hardware.

    The most simple questions, ati or nvidia? intel or amd?

    I guess, but it's just a supposition that the best option will be nvidia for the graphic card, but what about motherboard?

    Thank you very much

    PD. Sorry my bad english
    I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff compared to some people here but I think the first thing you have to do is identify your budget. Imho, if it's really low, go with an AMD chipset machine and it will have an ATI integrated graphics card but you can always add a separate video card. If the budget is mid-range or higher, go Intel. I would really try to build an Intel system right now since, for e.g., an i5 system can be build for good price/performance.

    Onboard audio will likely be Realtek or VIA. Onboard LAN will likely be Realtek (again) or Atheros. Most of it works OOTB but cheap cards can be bought that can solve any problems. As for nvidia v.s. ati for a dedicated video card? That debate rages on and I'm not going to recommend one or the other.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you for your reply.

      Budget is not a problem (actually it always is a problem), so ok, Intel, i5 or i7 (from a point of view based on linux compatibility)?

      ATI... NVIDIA... the eternal question...

      Comment


      • #4
        The cpu itself does not really matter - maybe for turbo mode of the latest intel cpus you might need a current kernel, same for the onboard (w)lan chips. Basically there are no incompatible current x86 cpus. Even the hd controller is still similar to old ones and is no problem to use with default ahci driver - even with older kernels. So you have got the free choice - for gfx card go for nv if you want to have got better (binary) Linux drivers. Even if you would try a completely new system, the max you may need to use is a supported nic to get online with an older kernel.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Serjor View Post
          ... and one of it's mainly purposes will be gaming, and I'm very lost looking the best linux compatible hardware.

          The most simple questions, ati or nvidia? intel or amd?
          ...

          If you wanna play newer games you will need a dedicated graphic card probably (chipset graphic or graphic units on certain Intel CPUs are too bad for newer games).
          Here and Here is my opinion about NVIDIA vs. ATI.

          In my opinion AMD CPUs a much more favorable than Intel CPUs. I have a Phenom X2 545 and I'm happy with it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Because your cpus needs more power and is slower, right? Maybe a few bucks cheaper when you buy it...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Kano View Post
              Because your cpus needs more power and is slower, right? Maybe a few bucks cheaper when you buy it...
              For the same price you get a much faster AMD CPU than a Intel CPU. If you compare CPUs with almost same power consumption the Intel CPU costs maybe about 30% more money and is maybe about 15% faster. Thats the reason why I think AMD CPUs are more favourable.

              Comment


              • #8
                Not in the 100-150 € cpu price segment - maybe 20-30 € more initial invest but more speed and less power usage (most likely better oc) for the rest of the cpu life circle.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kano View Post
                  Not in the 100-150 € cpu price segment - maybe 20-30 € more initial invest but more speed and less power usage (most likely better oc) for the rest of the cpu life circle.
                  AMD Phenom 2 945 (quad core, 3GHz) sells for 135€. The cheapest i5 sells for 155€ (i5-650, dual core, 3GHz). The cheapest i5 quad core (i5-750, 2.66GHz) sells for 170€. The Phenom is a better all-around processor than the 650, but it's slower than the 750 - but not 35€ slower. Frankly, Intel sucks from a value proposition until you reach the high end. Better put your money into a better video card!

                  AMD has better GPUs than Nvidia right now, but Nvidia has an edge on Linux drivers. If you dual boot to Windows for gaming, AMD is probably better. For pure Linux, you'll likely have better luck with a Nvidia GPU. Your pick!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A bit off topic but has anybody been able to find the errata or white papers on the AMD SB850 chipset yet?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      @blackstar

                      Well it is hard to compare the X4 945 because there is no quad in that price segment from the new iX series. But when you use X4 965 to compare is only 20 € less than i5-750. The cheaper Athlon X4 are busted in most bechmarks even with the dual core i3-530. You may certainly always find a cpu between others that has got no good match - try to compares those which have got one. The dual core i5 are no real good invest as the turbo mode would only work when 1 core is idle which would not be that often the case. Only if you really want the new AES functions you need those 32nm cpus which are not in the older quads nor in the i3. A good comparision in in the current ct 7/10. But for 100 € what do you find better than i3-530?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I just looked to benchmarks and compared Phenom X2 550, Athlon X3 435, Athlon X4 620 and Intel I3-530:


                        Performancerating tests
                        (higher is better)
                        Phenom X2 545: applications 100%, games 100%, theoretical tests 100%
                        Athlon X3 435: applications 115%, games 115%, theoretical tests 113%
                        Athlon X4 420: applications 125%, games 120%, theoretical tests 125%
                        Intel I3-530: applications 119%, games 126%, theoretical tests 145%

                        power consumption (lower is better):
                        Phenom X2 545: idle 100%, full load 100%
                        Athlon X3 435: idle 100%, full load 101%
                        Athlon X4 420: idle 99%, full load 111%
                        Intel I3-530: idle 90%, full load 71%

                        current prices (in Germany with 19% VAT):

                        Phenom X2 545: 72 EUR
                        Athlon X3 435: 65 EUR
                        Athlon X4 420: 80 EUR
                        Intel I3-530: 101 EUR

                        source: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think we can agree that the Athlons are by far the best value propositions in the mid-low-end segment. This is reflected in techreport's recommendations.

                          One more thing: the i3 does not support VT, while the X4 does. This is not for everyone, but it is useful when working with virtual machines.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Go AMD and ATI

                            Personally, I have had some bad experiances with Intel and AMD. Intels never seem to have enough features, and AMD dud chips (see the original Phenom.) Despite this, I do recommend AMD for a better price to performance ratio. I know with all this talk floating around about how much faster the i series is, you may think AMD is falling behind, but where real world applications are concerned, AMD is comparable on the low end. I personally run an Athlon X4 635 @ 3.51 GHz, and for such a low price, it runs circles around a similarly priced Core i3.

                            As for graphics, I would really go for ATI. I know that support sometimes seems flaky (see Unigine,) but for the most part, it is just fine. I also like the choice of being able to know that there is a open source driver available, if I ever wanted to use it. I have a Radeon HD 4650 in my computer, and for the most part, it can handle just about any Linux game I can throw at it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              Because your cpus needs more power and is slower, right? Maybe a few bucks cheaper when you buy it...
                              Are you kidding me.....

                              http://www.legitreviews.com/article/880/11/

                              Those numbers are in celsius mind you.

                              http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...65,2468-5.html

                              Again in celsius from toms no less....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X