the only thing you need to take care about is the HCL (hardware compatibility list): you need to buy hardware which is supported by linux, you should be able to install all the drivers you need. Otherwise you can freely choose what you prefer according to your needs.

Like I said before, this was 2010/2011, so you would get better hardware in general these days, than what I've currently got!

If the hardware is supported by Linux, you should not need to install a lot of (if any) drivers. As your distro should do that for you/already have them included with it.

hawksfan92,

First, it is much cheaper to buy a desktop PC off the shelf, but corners will have been cut and the component quality may not be what you would prefer.

A custom-built Linux PC will give you the ability to choose components and the satisfaction of assembly. This comes at a price.

I would definitely recommend using an Intel CPU.
There is no particular need to get anything beyond a half-decent i3, unless you wish to spend more money or have a specific requirement for a faster CPU.

On the subject of Intel, I have found their onboard HD graphics to be fine.
If you need better, then get an nvidia card.

Next get a decent PSU. This is usually the last item on the build list.

I usually use Gigabyte boards and I have never had a bad one. The thing to look out for is the LAN chip. It could be Realtek, Broadcom or Atheros, which may present problems right from the word go (i.e. no ethernet!).

You can get round this with a cheap USB to LAN adapter and then hopefully download and install the correct driver for the LAN chip later.
NB In the UEFI/BIOS, you will probably need to disable the existing (Realtek/other) LAN.

Example build:

CPU:
Intel i3-4160 (1150 socket-Haswell) rated at 5037:
http://www.ebuyer.com/658398-intel-c...-bx80646i34160

PSU: Corsair CX450M 450W 80 Plus Bronze Certified Modular ATX:
http://www.ebuyer.com/745621-corsair...-cp-9020101-uk

Motherboard (has a Realtek LAN):
Gigabyte GA-H81M-S2H Socket 1150 VGA DVI HDMI Micro ATX
http://www.ebuyer.com/667108-gigabyt...rd-ga-h81m-s2h

Memory:
Crucial Ballistix 2 x 4GB = 8GB kit 1600MHz

http://www.ebuyer.com/342352-crucial...d1609ds1s00ceu

Case: Cooler Master 342:
http://www.coolermaster.com/case/mini-tower/elite-342/

Hard drive(s):
Choose SSD or HDD.

Optical drive (if required):
Liteon iHAS324 24x Internal DVD Writer with SATA:
http://www.ebuyer.com/663413-liteon-...ail-ihas324-17

Fans (2) (optional):
Akasa AK-183-L2B 12cm Amber Series case fans
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Akasa-AK-183.../dp/B000BK7AUW

You probably do not need wifi, but if you do, then do your research for one which works OOTB with Linux.

This D-Link Go N150 150Mbps USB 2.0 WiFi Adapter does work OOTB:
https://www.cclonline.com/product/11...aptor/NET0927/

Hi...

No offense was intended.

Regards...

As an aside I have to point out that AMD CPUs have worked very well with Linux and I have not read of a single compatibility issue.
That said, I would likely choose Intel for my next build as they do tend to be more efficient. I do hate Intel's ridiculously large range of CPUs with this or that feature disabled so it's cheaper though -- good chips but annoying company.
For graphics don't think I'd even think of anything but NVIDIA with binary blob for gaming or similar, otherwise just go built-in.

I've read about a lot about people using AMD systems with linux, doin some more research I decided to look up and see what system 76 uses, my girlfriends dad has a laptop from them and it works amazing so they must know what they're doing and they very dominantly use Intel systems over AMD

My point is that they likely use Intel CPUs because they're more efficient chips at that price point, not because of anything to do with "compatibility".
If the particular AMD CPU you're looking at can be had for cheaper than the Intel that performs the same then there is absolutely no reason not to go AMD.
Sorry, not trying to be an AMD fanboy here but there is a big difference between what's a sensible hardware purchase for bang-for-buck, longevity power usage or whatever and "Linux compatibility". The two should never be confused -- it's a dangerous habit to get into.

I agree Intel is a more efficient chip. But does come at a cost. Which us why I like AMD, more affordable chip. I have an A8 in my laptop and other than all the bugs and out of date os before all this it worked wonderfully. I bought the laptop with windows 8 on it and put Ubuntu on it and ran well, trying to use that make a better running system.

I wouldn't worry to much about AMD hardware personally. I built my htpc / mini server from an AM1 Kabini quad core and it works flawlessly with Ubuntu server direct booting to Kodi for htpc purposes. Haven't had a single issue yet. Avoid the newest possible hardware though, I had a Intel Nuc that Ubuntu couldn't seem to do anything with the built in hdmi sound output. Ultimately ended up returning the nuc and getting similar hardware to my existing htpc / server.

On the low end AMD is more efficient now. Although not by much, but amd GPU versus intel GPU.

AMD A10-micro 6700T - mint box mini pro
--- cpubenchmark - typical TDP == 5W - cpu score == 1875
--- max ram == 16GB

Pentium N3710 - udoo x86 ultra
--- cpubenchmark - typical TDP == 6W - cpu score == 1871
--- max ram == 8GB

But it depends on what you want, in terms of minimum specs and maximum price. I've been looking at those two because it is roughly twice the cpu score of my hp stream 11s, 4 times or more the RAM, and less Watts.

I save money in the build your own category by buying a motherboard model in the "clearance" class, at least one full generation old, along with ample RAM, 80Plus power supply, and one of the cheaper compatible CPUs from eBay. I have no time for or interest in gaming, and watch videos on TVs from STBs designed for TV, various TV built-in, ATSC, IP and satellite devices capable of receiving subscription free programming. Until this PC I was using early PCIe Radeon video with a Foxconn 965P motherboard and Core2Duo, but onboard Intel seems to have evolved enough to get done what needs doing without unnecessary VPU current draw or cooler. I bought the Haswell I'm typing this from about 18 months ago, and run Apache and multiple web browsers on it 24/7:

I used to think the same, but my current board is a Gigabyte, and I have had problems with it. When I contacted Gigabyte support and told them I use Linux, their response was 'We do not support Linux'. I suggest avoiding Gigabyte boards for this reason.

genogebot,

I suspect that you will get a similar answer from most other motherboard manufacturers, since all they seem to know about is Windows.

'We do not support Linux' is a pretty meaningless comment since all motherboards, AFAIK, will work perfectly fine with Linux, even if you have to deal with the occasional problem with LAN and wireless chips on some boards.

Indeed. I have found that the best way is to not tell the manufacturer your OS and just tell them the issue. On the rare occasion the issue is interaction with the OS then the place to look is your distro's support pages and the place to ask for clarification is right here.
I very much doubt that there is anything on any one manufacturers entire motherboard range which causes issues with Linux and I very much doubt that if you do have an issue with, for example, a LAN chipset that any manufacturer will be of any more help than any other and that there is a manufacturer who hasn't used that chipset on some motherboard or other.
In other words, a motherboard's only as good as the components on it and the only way to confirm Linux compatibility is to google for issue with that specific model (and revision number).

Again, like CPUs, some motherboard manufacturers are better thought of than others (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI perhaps?) but that doesn't mean that they are better with Linux.

1 members found this post helpful.