Has anyone any suggestion (or is using) an off the shelf mini pc complete with GFX card (Cheaper than buying a separate cord?), on which I can install Ubuntu and stream Geforce Now games?

I currently use xubuntu one an XPS13 9300 connected to a monitor via HDMI but not really happy with the 'fiddle' of having to use a laptop.

Once it is going it works fine except the screen is the wrong width and I cannot change it.

I think a separate small PC is probably the way to go but I must have Linux.

Let's find out why you "can't". What operating system is already installed? If a Linux distro, locate the file Xorg.0.log or Xorg.1.log or Xorg.99.log, whichever is newest. It should be in /var/log/, but may be in ~/.local/share/xorg/. Once located, upload it to a Pastebin and reply here with the resulting URL. Uploading can be quite easy, using the pastebinit command in Debian and its derivatives, such as *buntu and Mint; susepaste in openSUSE; fpaste in Fedora; and similar in other distros, which you may be able to discover via the apropos command, or searching for "paste" in the package manager. e.g.:

Thank you for taking the time to assist, however, the mention of the problems with the current setup was only mentioned in passing as reason for wanting advice about a mini PC.

I have already requested help in respect of the current setup problems in the same forum under the heading:

XPS13 9300 connecting display to monitor via HDMI

To avoid any confusion can I ask you for the moment to restrict this thread to the mini PC please?

I hope this does not cause offence as I value your input which I have noted and appreciate.

In fact since posting I have found how to change the monitor screen.

I 'built' a quote for a mini computer which I think may do the job.

I have some reservations and would appreciate comment:

1. Intel® Core™ i7 Eight Core Processor i7-11700 (2.5GHz) 16MB Cache

2. 6GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1660 SUPER - HDMI, DP - GeForce GTX VR

From checking around it seems there is a problem with the GFX drivers on Ubuntu 20.04.

As for the processor, it should be ok for ubuntu?

NVidia's proprietary drivers are extra work to install and maintain that some people can't manage on their own, others won't manage on their own, while others seem delighted by the required extra activity. I never install them on my own equipment. FOSS is good enough for AMD and Intel users. It ought to be good enough for NVidia users too, but NVidia won't have any of that. Life with Linux is simpler, and cheaper, without NVidia, especially without the added complication of Optimus.

1 members found this post helpful.

If I understand your goal here, you want a basic desktop computer ('basic desktop' meaning it runs some distro with a GUI, and can probably handle 'light' tasks like checking email, browsing the web, what-have-you), and are going to run games via a 'cloud gaming' service like GeForce Now. If that is the case, you don't need to add a beefy graphics card to the machine - the 'gaming' on the PC (your PC) will be more of a 'media decode' workload (more like playing back Netflix) because the actual rendering/work is being done by the cloud machine. The Intel you picked has a very up-to-date iGPU that supports (from what I've read) basically every codec under the sun, so it should be good to go, although I'd make sure drivers have caught up (the 11000-series Intel processors introduced a new graphics chip, Xe, which is supposed to be materially different from previous Intel GPUs - it will be well supported, as older Intel chips have been, if it isn't already, its just a matter of time). If you want to be certain everything will 'just work' - grab a 10000-series Intel (they work in the same motherboards as the 11s - both are LGA 1200) and be happy. Whether or not you need an 8-core is up to you and your budget - there are cheaper quad and hex-core chips that may be just as good for your needs (they may be marketed as i3s, i5s, etc), if you aren't doing anything that really leans on the CPU locally (streaming content will not generally be such a load - but if you're encoding video, compiling a lot of stuff on a deadline, etc you may want the extra cores). You may also consider an Intel NUC which will put everything in an even smaller package, but you will give up some expansion options (e.g. you don't get full-size PCIe slots).

'What about an AMD option?' - AMD makes some CPUS with built-in graphics too, they call them 'APUs' and market them as Ryzen G, and that would be suitable too. You would need an AM4 socket motherboard instead of the LGA 1200 socket board. The graphics built in to these are more performant than the Intel chips as well, but their offerings are thinner (that is, most AMD chips don't have graphics built in whereas all Intel desktop CPUs except F skus have IGPs).

'What about something even cheaper?' - You may be able to find 'last gen' (9-series) Intel chips at reduced prices, along with their attendant 300-series chipset-based boards (e.g. Z390) on LGA 1151, or you may look at a much lower-in-the-line chip like an i3 or a Pentium for either the older 1151, or the current 1200 socket.

As far as 'issues with the GFX' - generally there is a time lag in support for 'brand new hardware' on linux (this is true to some extent on Windows too), so usually buying the latest-and-greatest can have growing pains, and that seems to be what search engines are great at finding (people complaining about that). That's what I'd be curious about with Xe today (mid-2021; they launched a month or two ago), but with the 1660 having been out for a while, they are probably mature enough to work just fine. If this is a question specifically about nVidia's proprietary driver, see my reply to mrmazda below:

I completely agree with you on this, for most distros, because nVidia's documentation is A) awful and B) incomplete in many respects (seriously in some of their docs they still describe settings in terms of GeForce 2s and 3s...). However, Ubuntu (and its derivatives, like Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc, as well as Pop_OS) package and maintain the nVidia drivers in their mainline, and installation is quite literally a one-click (it can be done at install time too) - its actually even easier than the nVidia Windows driver install. On any 'recent' Ubuntu install (I can speak with surety back to 18.04 LTS on this), any nVidia device has been painless (and will generally pull either the latest/final driver available for the card, or a relatively up-to-date release if the card is currently supported), but if you stray very far from Canonical things become a lot less fun. I completely agree with the FOSS argument and I'm not at all saying 'go buy nVidia they work great in linux!' - they work great in Ubuntu and can be tolerable elsewhere, and if its the hardware you have, its the hardware you have. But if you're buying new hardware I agree with looking at AMD or Intel because they are more linux-friendly options (that also incidentally work just fine in Windows if you need to dual-boot). For this specific thread's target I would look at Intel because of the power/thermal/cost savings (and because dGPUs are essentially unbuyable at any price right now), and when you say 'mini PC' I think NUC.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thank you for that situation explanation which help tremendously.

In the build I was costing I was attempting to be future proof for some 3 years but I am very unfamiliar with gaming hardware having never played until covid.

Using your information I think I will price both a streaming machine and a stand alone machine for the only game I do play, No Man's Sky.

When I do have such a machine it will be Linux only because my dual boot laptop will suffice for the few occasions when I need windows.

For me, this is a steep learning curve and I appreciate the input I get here to help me not waste hard earned money.

My thoughts now are around building a machine capable only for streaming but making sure I can upgrade it maybe at the end of a one year streaming contract, to a stand alone machine.

Some further thoughts in response to this: if your goal is to upgrade later, e.g. to buy a GPU once they become purchasable again, then pass on the NUC and go with desktop hardware - get something that will let you use an IGP today, and that has a PCI Express x16 slot for adding a dGPU down the line. Also consider the enclosure, power supply, and cooling in this equation - high end graphics cards tend to have significant power requirements and can put out a lot of heat (as an exmaple: the Radeon in one of my systems reports power draw of over 200W (!) when working, and needs twin 8-pin auxiliary power connectors to run it). So if the goal is to upgrade down the line, plan the system around that so you aren't replacing everything in a year just to add a dGPU. As far as 'future proofing' - time was I would tell you 'there is no future proof' but the last 5-or-so years have changed that (in my view), and things are relatively static at this point. In other words, a good CPU from five years ago is still 'keeping up' today, even if it isn't the fastest thing on the block anymore (this contrasts with the situation 10-20 years ago where that 'five years' gap could mean a 10x performance difference or more)). Of course nobody can predict the future, but based on the last few years I doubt something like that 11700 from your previous post would age all that badly.

If you're wondering 'what does plan the system' look like specifically:
- I'd pick an enclosure with good airflow, meaning it has vents, can have multiple fans mounted (and the mounts make sense - you can't draw air through a solid plate of metal for example).
- I'd pick a PSU that can deliver 500-700W and offers some PCI Express power connections (ideally 6+2 style so it will be compatible with most anything)
- I'd pick a motherboard with the aforesaid PCI Express x16 slot - 3.0 vs 4.0 doesn't seem to matter much (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/n...caling/27.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/p...700-xt/23.html)

For just running the CPU with its IGP (be it AMD or Intel), the system RAM, and so forth a lot of this will look like (And is) overkill, but if you knock everything down to the bare requirements of the CPU/IGP-only system you may end up replacing more parts if/when you add the dGPU, but conversely if you never upgrade you won't be harming anything by having a little bit over-built machine.

As far as graphics cards go (probably the only 'gaming unique' hardware) - I wish I could give you good advice there but the entire market got blown up due to covid, scalpers, and so forth, so prices make absolutely no sense and availability is essentially nil. Depending on who you believe it will improve 'any day now' or is 'the new normal' - what I can tell you is that gamers were not spending US$4000+ on graphics cards all these years, and even US$700+ was considered obscene up until just a few months ago. I also cannot imagine the current situation to be sustainable over the long-term, but what the 'outcome' of that is I wouldn't want to guess.

1 members found this post helpful.

You have given me a lot of food for thought in that post, thank you.

Are you able to suggest a CPU with integrate GFX for purchase now?

It really depends on your actual overall usage - any of the Intel chips that don't have an 'F' in the model will generally have an IGP (e.g. '11400F' will have no IGP, but '10900K' would still have an IGP). I know that its popular today to have huge core counts, but you really need to think about your usage versus your budget - gaming is generally hitting diminishing returns at 6+ cores, and a lot of 'consumer applications' or 'office applications' (email, web browsing, chat, word processing, etc kinds of things) can be very well served by even more modest hardware. But you will know your overall usage and requirements better than anyone can guess at, so just consider that versus the CPU you look at - if you're thinking 'well I have no idea' then think about your current machine(s) and their specs and consider how well they do, or do not, serve your needs and compare their specs to what is actually on offer today (in other words, if your fastest, newest, best machine is a dual core chip and its perfectly handling your needs, you probably don't need to run out and buy an 8+ core monster, but on the other hand if you've already got a 6 core chip and you're needing more performance on a regular basis, that 8 core may not be so wild).

1 members found this post helpful.

For many years I have only used laptops and never played games so I find it difficult the compare processors. I have an i7 at the moment and it copes well. I was just thinking that if I buy an 8 then in a years time I only have to upgrade the gfx and not both.

Anyway, as you say, I now have enough information make much better choices. Thank you.

For completeness, should anyone follow this thread I will add the items I decide to purchase:

1. Intel® CoreTM i7 Eight Core Processor i7-11700K (3.6GHz) 16MB Cache

2. ASUS® TUF GAMING Z590-PLUS WIFI (LGA1200, USB 3.2, PCIe 4.0) -
ARGB Ready

3. 16GB Corsair VENGEANCE DDR4 3200MHz (2 x 8GB)

4. 512GB INTEL® 660p M.2 NVMe PCIe SSD (up to 1500MB/sR |
1000MB/sW)

5. CORSAIR 750W RMx SERIESTM MODULAR 80 PLUS® GOLD, ULTRA QUIET

6. Corsair H100x Hydro Series High Performance CPU Cooler

7. MIN. 2 x USB 3.0 & 2 x USB 2.0 PORTS @ BACK PANEL + MIN. 2 FRONT
PORTS

As said, it may seem over the top in some regards but allows upgrading to a dedicated NSM gaming machine after a year of streaming NSM.

Unless you plan to add a bunch of HDDs or multiple NVidia 4+ output gfxcards, 750W is grossly overprovisioning. The following PC is currently running Xorg and consuming 34 watts from an EVGA 450 B1 100-B1-0450-K1 80+ BRONZE 450W power supply. Pale Moon, SeaMonkey & Firefox are open, the latter playing a CNN Youtube video fullscreen!:The TDP on this CPU/IGP is a mere 35W, but it should give a general idea how little power a modern PC without a gaming graphics card consumes.

1 members found this post helpful.

We did start out saying that I would buy such things as a PSU which for streaming with integrated GFX would be OTT but be worthwhile for when I upgrade to a dedicated GFX card.

From what I read these cards can spike and having a PSU which is not struggling would be better. Maybe 500 would be ok but the price difference is not great.

As another few points of data, my i7-5775C quad core machine with the Radeon card from above is reporting around 110W (AC side) from its UPS right now, doing a likely similar multimedia workload to your i3. When the GPU is loaded up in a game or some other task, it will run roughly triple that. To give you an extreme upper-end example, I had a quad socket server board on the bench this morning and with all 4 sockets (48 cores total) fully loaded to 100%, it was drawing around 650W (AC side), and that was running on an 860W PSU. I'd probably agree with 750W being on the 'big' side, but not excessively so, with a GPU in mind, and certainly not appropriate for a 4-way GPU configuration.

If you're stacking a lot of hard-drives keep an eye on the 5V current demands - a lot of newer PSUs have pretty wimpy 5V rails (even at the 1000W level).