I am in the planning stage of a new Linux workstation for personal use. At this point, I am grappling with the graphics card question.

This system will never be used for video games, creating full-motion video, or watching movies from streaming services. In fact, watching tutorial videos on YouTube is probably the most demanding thing the graphics card will have to do. I will be working with spreadsheets, web browsing, coding in a good IDE, and running a very rich GUI desktop.

My display requirements are to have a large monitor 40 to 44” wide and 20” tall, with a resolution of 3840x2160, or possibly 4096x2160. I expect I will be sitting in front of this display for hours at a time, from 20 to 24” away, so the display has to be rock-steady and very sharp.

The question at this point is which graphics card to buy. Everything I have read up to now has been so discouraging that I think I am going to cry. Apparently, it all boils down to software, not hardware. It’s all about the drivers. It really looks to me like Linux support is little more than an afterthought to the hardware manufacturers.
Intel appears to be the best of the bunch (software-wise, anyway), by open-sourcing its drivers, but what I’ve read so far indicates that even Intel’s support for linux is utter sh!t.

Considering the requirements listed above, can anyone help? Any good news at this point would be very welcome.

Intel generally works and plays well with Linux. I have owned several native Linux machines over the years (I have three right now--two desktops and a laptop) and they all came with Intel inside.

This article from the Arch Wiki may prove useful.

You need to look at articles for 4K linux and HiDPI.







Intel has provided a lot of support for Linux over the decades. There may be no better company to Linux. However like every OEM they make a bagillion devices.

Running 4K may not work as expected on all applications.

Intel and AMD will both work perfectly OOTB.

AMD. If you don't believe me, just look at the horror stories on this website.

Integrated graphics should be sufficient, but if you need better then go INTEL or AMD. Good AMD cards are slightly better quality and stability, but INTEL graphics are not far behind. Either is more than good enough for normal use and a LOT cheaper that NVIDIA. NVIDEA has the greatest power and features for professional graphic work and gaming (for now, they are getting out of the gaming market in the next gen to focus on AI application industries) but with the poorest support for Linux.

BTW: AMD CPUs run cooler and more efficiently than INTEL CPUs, and run most graphics and gaming applications better. Exception: ADOBE PHOTOSHOP and BLENDER on Windows and MAC run better on INTEL, but you are not doing that.

IF you are building a system for your stated purpose, the advantage will be with a good late generation AMD CPU and AMD graphics that is NOT cutting edge (but not the cheapest option either, go for the one that supports your needed resolutions).

Intel & AMD IGPs work with Linux but IGPs have some great disadvantages. If you don't want to install a brake pad into your computer avoid IGPs.

• IGPs uses "shared memory". That's a part of main memory. This decreases main memory performance and reduces available main memory size. Main memory is very slow for graphics applications.
• If an IGP is used heat dissipation of CPU and GPU is located at the same place. If a graphics card is used heat dissipation of CPU and GPU is located at two different places.
• Some AMD Ryzen models with IGP lacks PCIe Gen. 4 support. Similar models without IGP provides PCIe Gen. 4 support.

Buy an AMD graphics card. These graphics cards are supported by OSS driver amdgpu included in the Linux kernel. Avoid Nvidia graphics cards. They require a proprietory driver for full performance. Performance of OSS driver nouveau included in the Linux kernel is poor because Nvidia blocks development of OSS drivers for their graphics cards.

A discrete GPU instead of an IGP in a PC for use like you describe is generally a silly waste of money, unless you're seriously big-time skimping on installed RAM. Both AMD and Intel IGPs provide all you need for your described use, though if you buy a model new enough, you may need to wait a period of time (a few weeks to 6 or more months) for full support to catch up. Generally if the distro release of your choice is 6 months or more newer than the hardware introduction date, you should be able to count on support OOTB or within a few updates or weeks.

If you just need video without "gamer performance", how about motherboard's built in native video? Most motherboards have "decent" but not "stellar" video output.

Hope this helps.

I would suggest a separate graphics card. If you're choosing a laptop, integrated might be good. I've just spent a while (10 years) enduring sucky graphics because like you, I said "I don't need gamer graphics." But I quickly realised I didn't want them to be that sucky!

I can't see the value in a separate graphics card if the most it's going to do is a "Youtube tutorial video". This computer has an AMD processor with built-in Radeon 5 graphics which works just fine. I should say that I'm not using such a vast screen, if that's relevant — but then I assume the screen is for the benefit of large spead-sheets rather than the occasional video tutorial.