I'm thinking about a new desktop motherboard. My primary concerns:

* If possible I prefer to avoid UEFI.

* If possible I prefer Intel graphics chip sets.

I realize Slackware supports UEFI. Further, if a user has no need to boot into Windows 8 then the topic largely is moot. I don't know whether UEFI is needed for Windows 7. That said, I prefer to avoid UEFI.

I'm not a laptop fan yet one aspect I like about my Thinkpad T400 is the Intel graphics just work. No mussing and fussing with proprietary drivers. I am growing weary of the never ending updates with proprietary nvidia drivers and I'm not yet fond of nouveau.

Comments and suggestions appreciated.

Edit: The above implies on-board graphics.

I think all motherboards support "legacy BIOS" booting (my new one does that by default), and it's easier to find an i[375] processor with onboard graphics and a motherboard with an HDMI port, than ones that don't have those.

In case you're wondering, I have this motherboard:

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/H87PLUS/

Shows how much I've kept pace with hardware the past few years. Looks like I satisfy my second concern by using an Intel CPU.

Now to learn the real-world electrical consumption with the latest breed of Intel multi-core CPUs.

Greetings
Yeah forget laptops. With phones hitting 4GB Ram and multiple cores, and the versatility, power, and upgrade-ability of desktops, and with everything going touch-screen, factor in tablets and I predict traditional laptop sales will level off then fall.

As for your desktop, I have one question - I have never heard anyone say (admit?) they actually prefer Intel graphics, why you? Admittedly they have recently made some leaps and we have to give credit where it's due that they are apparently investing pretty strongly in developing decent Linux drivers. However that day isn't here quite yet, that is if you want serious 3D acceleration.

IMHO and after some 20 years on non-windows boxes (my first GUI was IBM OS2 2.0) nVidia has always and still does provide the easiest and best serious support for the alternative world. If performance isn't a major issue for you, Ivy Bridge and onward Intel Graphics with the OSS kernel driver is moderately good. Give them maybe 2 years and they may have something sweet for Linux users. Yes, I know AtI has had more than 4 years and still can't seem to write a decent driver, but Intel does appear more committed. For now, I suggest you decide what level of performance will suit you before you commit. I have never felt forced to upgrade my proprietary nVidia drivers, but if you boot to CLI it's a trivial 5 minute job, including download.

At least for the time being you don't have to worry about UEFI for Linux or Win 7.

Even though I use and recommend nVidia, my present main system ran the onboard Intel Graphics for a few months and it was decent. BTW I tried Intel's own (presently pita install process) accelerated Linux driver and found it to not be sufficiently better than the kernel driver to bother, but that is apparently and hopefully changing.

FWIW I am very pleased with my Asrock Z77 Extreme 4 with i5-3550 CPU and Corsair ram and expect I will get a solid 5 year cycle out of it. BTW zero issues with 3 distros. Everything just works.

I'm not dissatisfied with nvidia on my current desktop as much as I'm weary of the never ending updating. The older I get the crankier I get. Or lazier, but I don't know whether there is a difference. A few things on the computer I'm tired of endlessly updating.

When I bought my T400 used this summer I immediately noticed I did nothing to get the video to work. I installed 14.0 and X just worked. After years of building an nvidia package I was impressed.

Overall I find the T400 graphics faster than my desktop nvidia 6150. No drivers to build either. I'm not a gamer. I don't use 3D much anyway.

I do a lot of software compiling, which is why I am thinking new hardware. I don't need screaming graphics. Just adding a faster CPU and SATA III likely will double the speeds I'm seeing now with my Asus M2NPV-VM and AMD 2.3 GHz BE-2400. Integrated graphics with the new CPUs will be faster than what I have grown accustomed. Been a nice system for 5 years but I'm slowly growing impatient with compile times.

Good to know although at the moment I am not planning to dual boot anything.

Thank you. Looks like a contender for my list. Has a PS2 port (I won't give up my old Northgate Omnikey Ultra keyboard without a long bitter fight. )

That's all I want: Just works.

I think at this point anything is going to be faster than a GeForce 6150SE. Intel, AMD/ATI, or Nvidia again. You could easily get a low-end GeForce G/GT series desktop graphics card.

However, my question is why specifically Intel? Intel in my opinion is severely overpriced compared to offerings from AMD not to mention that most of AMD's latest offerings carry 8-12 cores per CPU. Clock for clock, you're spending anywhere from 50-90% less for the AMD CPU than you are for the Intel one.

For build time comparison, the most core logical processors for Intel is only 6 compared to AMD's 8, and AMD has about a full GHz in speed over Intel now. For anyone seriously concerned with compile times, the extra speed and cores that make can utilize seriously put Intel at a disadvantage. The price factor should therefore completely nullify what Intel can offer at comparison.

To me the AMD-FX 9590 8-core 5.0GHz CPU @ $400.00 is a hell of a bargain compared to the Intel i7-4960 6-core 4.0 GHz @ $1059.00... but that's my 2 cents.

With respect to the original post, the point was I'm tired of building video drivers. Not a skill or knowledge issue. I'm just getting old, cranky, and lazy. That said, if I continue building proprietary drivers, I'll pick nvidia any day over radeon/catalyst. I'm not going down the radeon/catalyst road. At all. That said, if I don't build any video drivers at all, which was the case with the T400 that impressed me, then I'll be even less cranky.

You read way too deep into my statement. Yes I compile a lot. Yes, anything new I buy will be twice as fast as my current system. Or faster. I'll be happy with that. I'm not interested in heating the office with the new hardware or in doubling the electric bill.

I'm not paying anything like that. Not even close.

Some clarications abou the number of logical and virtual cores on AMD and Intel CPUs:
While AMD claims that there FX8xxx/FX9xxx CPUs are 8-core CPUs they are not. These CPUs are 4-module CPUs, with each module containing two integer cores and one floating point unit. While this is a very advanced form of SMT it is still not the case that these CPUs actually have the performance of real 8-cores. You can see that in many benchmarks, where AMD's top of the line CPUs are beaten down by Intel's 4-core CPUs with Hyperthreading (and often even by those without Hyperthreading).

So saying that AMD has 8-core CPUs, but Intel only comes down to six is inherently wrong, you have to compare these CPUs with looking at their SMT features. This means that comparable to the AMD FX8xxx/9xxx series are the four core i5/i7 CPUs. AMD has no CPU (in the desktop market) that is comparable (in price and performance) to Intel's 6-core i7 CPUs (which feature 12 logical cores).

Also, if you compare benchmarks of CPUs from Intel and AMD in the same price range you will find that there is no advantage for AMD in the price/performance ratio. That was the case back in the days, but is not anymore.

It is only a bargain because you compare two CPUs from a totally different class. The FX9590 is nowhere near the performance of the Intel CPU, its direct competitor is the 4770K from Intel, which is listed around 340$ at Newegg.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the information TobiSGD. At this point I have little to no faith in AMD graphics and the AMD graphics support history speaks for itself. The discussion in that area is moot.

Currently I'm liking the 4th generation Intel APUs/CPUs and I'm finding favorable reviews. A tad pricey, but I figure the system should provide contentment for 5 years. As I mentioned, I'm not a gamer and have no critical 3D demands. Thus integrated graphics will be fine. I don't know that I need 6 cores --- 4 cores will be a jump up from my dual core. Overall, any new system will be super fast compared to my present dual core system.

Absolutely agreed! For 2D emphasis (or relative lack of 3D) even a $100 card will not even bother to look back and grin as it crushes the 6150SE. This minimal concern for 3D caused me to recall many years ago when I first booted my system with a brand new Matrox Mystique which literally dropped my jaw at the improved contrast and clarity. I looked them up for grins but they seem to be in a streaming niche market now. I don't know if anyone makes a superb 2D card anymore, but as for speed, that's easy these days.

If all you need is decent 2D performance your idea of an Intel Onboard is workable since the kernel driver is pretty darned good and as you said, Woodsman, ultra easy. (I still don't understand why you upgraded nVidia driver so much)(

Don't worry, we aren't going to devolve into Ford vs/ Chevy here, at least with me since I don't have a strong bias to either. I do have a strong bias to bargain tho. My previous CPU purchase was an AMD-FX57 which despite my polishing and overclocking the bejeezus out of still runs fast today and make no mistake, just because it is single core does not make it a slouch since so little software still really takes advantage of multi-cores. That was a $1000+ US CPU when it was released and I waited like a vulture as prices fell and managed to get in on a batch that lasted only 2 weeks selling for $257 US

My latest machine is only 5 months old yet I chose Intel and an i5-3550 at that. I researched for months to find it hit a price and bang-for-buck I could not exceed with any other product from anybody. We all know there is more to speed than just cores and clocks and it is heavily dependent on what you crunch.

In all except the lower echelon, under $300, benchmark testing shows Intel tends to edge out AMD at real-world jobs like decoding mpegs, and eats them alive at 3D CAD/Gaming. If I were to compare an Intel to the AMD 220 Watt 8-core w/ 8MB Cache, above, I would look at the 6-core 130 Watt i7 3900 series w/ 12MB cache and huge PciEx lanes that sells for between $500-600, but then my preference isn't high core count. Wattage = heat = throttling. For what I do I'd probably go for something like the i7-4770 series w/ 8MB cache, huge lanes, but only 4 cores that sells for between $300-$400.

The bottom line is any $500 CPU is going to be fast. If you don't wish to spend a lot of time researching you're still going to see a handsome speed increase... but if you're a bargain hunter start researching socket upgrade path, application to the specific work you do, heat removal (I think the AMD comes with a liquid cooler) etc to see what suits you best.

Bugs. Updating kernels. Updating Slackware releases. Free/libre software is much fun and liberating, but the fast moving targets are a PITA. Every time something changes, something else breaks.

After many hours of reading, I'm leaning toward an i7. A little future proofing. The newer 4th generation Intel CPUs were designed with energy conservation in mind. They have the muscle needed to heavy work but at idle the chips fall way down with energy consumption.

If you don't want to rebuild drivers you should just use VESA or FBDev. Even Intel drivers have to be rebuilt against various kernels, libdrm, libmesa, etc. packages so saying you don't want to rebuild Nouveau or Xorg-Radeon is very fickle an argument.

Plus, those claims about AMD. Need proof and non-biased references please. I've seen too much bias towards Intel in my days with overhyped and overexaggerated claims about Intel being oh-so better than AMD. Sorry but no.

Greetings
This I found in less than a minute but I assure you as I belong to an Overclockers club and forums as well as subscribe to a few magazines, this is common.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

When one looks carefully, and without presumption, one begins to see the simple effectiveness of market forces. Both AMD and Intel have been at this game a long time and they haven't survived this long by alienating their customer base or reducing sales by overpricing. In general, and if at all careful, we get what we pay for, as long as we know what we're paying for..

The only caveat is that some at the high end deliver status, peace of mind (to some)et cetera so a few special bargains exist where all one wants is performance and status be damned. You may notice that the AMD 9590 is indeed a true bargain. It isn't fair to compare server chips with desktop chips but it is a simple matter to omit those and see that the AMD at roughly $300 requires from Intel a desktop chip at almost $600 to beat it, and it trounces many desktop chips at nearly $1000. It is surely one of those special bargains especially in a full size case where cooling is more effective.

However the model you compared to would eat it for a snack and not even belch.

Woodsman another point is that mobos are not build to last nowadays and buying an older generation mobo usually means something that was collecting dust for a few years.
That said, depends on your CPU and other hardware. a full PC might be a simpler/easier solution and not THAT expensive.
My current setup has http://ark.intel.com/products/75043
and a http://www.gigabyte.us/products/prod...px?pid=4516#ov (can turn off uefi)
Unless you are a heavy gamer, the GPU on that is all that you need, and later kernels have a good support for those.

Hi
I have to disagree with the first statement since there seems to be a flock of ruggedized motherboards marketed these days and these guys tend to have their "finger on the pulse" of what feature will sell and what gets passed over. This is but one example, but Gigabyte has not one but several Series labeled "Ultra Durable" and lately many ITX boxes are available that are designed to withstand higher temperatures. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this as a popular trend, despite the fact that most people do a complete base upgrade within 5 years.

For the second part, did I miss something? Generally replacing a 5 year old motherboard and cpu (and cooling, I hope) also entails replacing ram. To me this is a "full PC".

If by "full pc" you meant some OEM box, most "hobby" system builders exceed their quality by a huge margin and don't get locked in to stupid proprietary connectors and the like. To the vast majority of OEMs (your HPs, Dells, etc) they generally build with sales floor bullet points in mind "Give us the sexy numbers!" They care little for the real nuts n bolts, like power supplies, cabling, and cooling. Hobbyists know, for example, that Power Supplies rated at essentially room temperature will be lucky to deliver even 60% of that rating at operating temperatures. Why pay some OEM to cut corners where the rubber meets the road?

Edit: Now I see you linked an Ultra Durable so I'm even more curious than before.