Hi, I am using Debian on my laptop since last few years. It has Intel I3 Core processor.
Now, I am planning to buy a Desktop PC with AMD FX 8320E processor. However, I am not much sure about its support on linux? Can you please answer my following queries?

1. Is this processor supported by Debian?
2. FX8320E is good when applications are multi-threaded. Are applications like libreoffice, emacs, firefox multi-threaded?
3. Is linux OS itself relies on multithreading? If yes, do you recommend AMD 8 core processor(than intel i3/i5 processor) for linux?
4. Are there any applications which don't work good with this processor?


I know, some of these may look like dumb questions..sorry about it.

1. Yes, I use it on it's more power hungry older brother, the 8320
2. Yes, 8 simultaneous threads. Not sure which apps are well coded for smp though.
3. The kernel itself is well designed for multi-threads.
4. I haven't found any that I use.

Thanks Timothy! From your profile, it seems that you have worked on Debian/Windows with AMD FX/Intel Core processors.
1) Do you see any performance improvements on FX 8320 + Debian compared to Intel + Debian and FX 8320 + Windows? (Just want to understand, if Linux has "Better" multi-threading design)
2) It seems from your profile, you work on all of above combinations(great!!). What do you do?
3) Do you have any suggestions regarding choice of processors, ram etc?

1. I definitely personally see better performance from Debian on my machines. As to AMD vs. Intel, my Intel 3630QM (8 threads) definitely runs smoother than my FX8320 (8 threads), but the 8320 is still quite smooth. In Windows, much less of a difference since I game, and the GTX760 makes a gigantic difference in games compared to the HD4000 of the Intel chip.

2. End User Support for a major Telecom, but I'm currently looking into moving into sysadministration, hopefully within the company I already work for, I'd really like to stay with them.

3. If you're not overclocking, get what you need, don't bother with super high speed ram if you're not going to overclock, it costs more and will give negligible, if any, gains in performance at stock FSB settings. Processors AMD is SIGNIFICANTLY slower clock for clock per core, and uses WAY more power, but offered an incredible value for the price. I went AMD because of the value, and because as more and more games support SMP better, AMD's sheer number of cores helps to lessen the gap to Intel (it doesn't close it by any means, however). However, Intel has recently stepped up on the low end with unlocked i3's, and the Pentium Gwhatever that's unlocked, so if building new now, I honestly can't recommend an AMD processor. The Intels simply have too much of an advantage in IPC, that now that they've finally offered unlocked chips in the low-end price spectrum, there's just nothing to me that makes an AMD choice worth going to now unless you use a program that specifically benefits from the sheer number of cores or you need a super cheap Windows machine for light gaming, where AMD's APU's still beat Intel down due to the integrated gpu being just SOOOOOOOOOOOo much better than INtels. But AMD's graphics drivers for linux =