LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware
User Name
Password
Linux - Hardware This forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?

Notices


View Poll Results: Which do you prefer, Intel or AMD?
Intel 21 48.84%
AMD 22 51.16%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-14-2017, 09:01 PM   #16
frankbell
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu MATE, Mageia, and whatever VMs I happen to be playing with
Posts: 19,272
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124Reputation: 6124

I selected Intel because all my machines came that way, but I do not have strong feelings, as long as the darn thing works.
 
Old 03-14-2017, 09:34 PM   #17
gradinaruvasile
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Cluj, Romania
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 731

Rep: Reputation: 158Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by rknichols View Post
On installations where Intel's integrated graphics is sufficient (and since I'm not a gamer, that's just about everywhere), then using Intel saves me from having to buy a graphics card. Plus, Intel graphics is well supported in Linux.
You might be surprised but AMD's cards (maybe not the latest'n'greatest as it is often in Linux) in fact work better on Linux than Intel's - in theory the Intel drivers support higher OpenGL versions but they have 3D rendering artefacts whereas even the older AMD IGPs are faster and behave better. Not to forget the tearing issues with Intel graphics and weird multi monitor support. One area Intel are better is hardware decoding (latest Skylake/Skylake+ versions do 4K@60hz without breaking a sweat at least on i7s) but if you want a smooth experience you have to carefully select the software and output modes to avoid tearing.
And for some reason the Intel's own Xorg drivers are not updated very often (version increments are not done since a long time) and distros have to constantly watch commits and build from git. Because of this in current distros there is a push to use the (currently) lower quality but better maintained 'modesetting' driver which further degrades performance and quality (more tearing and no TearFree option).
But yeah, Intel CPUs are more widespread especially in OEM builds and laptops (and AMD even if exists is usually gimped by single channel memory and/or lower end hardware).

Yes i am an AMD fan and built my desktop exclusively with AMD CPUs since forever. But i have a laptop with Intel CPU at home and also at work.
The current desktop build has an APU that is rock stable on Debian Testing (graphics too). The computer stays on 24/7 and i only do light gaming on it so i don't need an additional video card. The CPU is fine for my needs now, but i will upgrade it to a newer AMD APU when they are finally released.

Last edited by gradinaruvasile; 03-14-2017 at 09:42 PM.
 
Old 03-15-2017, 02:09 AM   #18
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth, unfortunately...
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063
Wow, I didn't expect it would be this close (currently Intel 9 and AMD 10 votes). But, very interesting nevertheless! Thank you, to everyone that has voted to date. Maybe I should have put another option in the vote like, "I don't prefer ether" (or something similar).
 
Old 03-15-2017, 03:01 PM   #19
Rich Strebendt
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Wheaton, IL
Distribution: CentOS 5.10
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: 7
You left off an alternative: DonTgivaDa*n
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-16-2017, 03:20 PM   #20
PlugableDavid
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
All AMD until I recently snagged a used i7-930 Intel machine for $100 with 12 GB of memory after my 8-core AMD computer crapped out.
 
Old 03-16-2017, 06:02 PM   #21
desertcat
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: Tucson, AZ
Distribution: UNK: (NEW Workstation) AMD 5900X w/64GB; CentOS 7 (Workstation) AMD FX 6300 w/32GB;
Posts: 74

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
AMD have consistently failed to produce anything that even aproaches Intel on any benchmark I have seen. For that reason I'll liklely replace my current FX-8370 desktop with Intel when I have to do so. Unless AMD magically make Ryzen suddenly better than even an i5.
From what I have read Ryzen is going to smoke Itel i7, unless you go into the very pricey high end server CPU's. Simply put, you get more bang for your buck with an AMD processor. I currently run a light Workstation built from the ground up and based around an AMD FX 6300 processor that was initially configured with 16 GB of DDR3 RAM, a 1 TB HD, a 630W power supply, a fast DVD/RW Optical Drive, a reasonably decent NVIDIA graphics card, (including a NZXT 210 Elite Mid Tower, and an ASUS M5A97 R2.0 mobo.) We built an identical pair of computers for a tad over $600 each. We have since upgraded each computer by adding a 275 GB SSD and added another 16GB of RAM bring the total to 32GB. Had we gone with an i5 or i7 we'd have blown the budget right out the gate.

Now if I were into GAMING... I'd opt for a top of the line Intel i7, a fast video card etc., but the video card alone would have cost more than what out entire system cost. I think that the upper end AMD Ryzen Processors, plus the new DDR4 RAM are going to be game changers, even -- if what I have read is correct -- if you are into gaming.
 
Old 03-16-2017, 07:21 PM   #22
mrmazda
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: SE USA
Distribution: openSUSE 24/7; Debian, Knoppix, Mageia, Fedora, others
Posts: 5,788
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065Reputation: 2065
Intel:
1-overall simplicity (a-rarely{never?} depends on optional/non-free firmware;b-easier to distinguish among tiers, which are entry, mid or high)
2-FOSS Xorg video drivers only (resources AMD and NVidia spend on proprietary drivers Intel puts into FOSS). Not perfect, but simpler to figure out and get fixed if non-working.
 
Old 03-17-2017, 02:32 AM   #23
gradinaruvasile
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Cluj, Romania
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 731

Rep: Reputation: 158Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmazda View Post
Intel:
1-overall simplicity (a-rarely{never?} depends on optional/non-free firmware;b-easier to distinguish among tiers, which are entry, mid or high)
2-FOSS Xorg video drivers only (resources AMD and NVidia spend on proprietary drivers Intel puts into FOSS). Not perfect, but simpler to figure out and get fixed if non-working.
You do know that Skylake and newer graphics need 2 binary-only (=proprietary) firmware modules to work fully, right? Link here.
That Intel FOSS driver given the supposedly used resources should been way way better. AMD's current OSS drivers are better even with their limited resources - AMD's video hardware is better than Intel's even their IGPs have better supported features regardless of "performance" differences. On Windows might be different but on Linux AMD is better.
BTW AMD reworked their drivers and they move away from proprietary model.

Last edited by gradinaruvasile; 03-17-2017 at 02:38 AM.
 
Old 03-31-2017, 07:23 AM   #24
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth, unfortunately...
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Strebendt View Post
You left off an alternative: DonTgivaDa*n
Yep, I should thought of that in the first place, my bad!
 
Old 03-31-2017, 06:12 PM   #25
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680

Rep: Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373Reputation: 2373
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertcat View Post
From what I have read Ryzen is going to smoke Itel i7, unless you go into the very pricey high end server CPU's. Simply put, you get more bang for your buck with an AMD processor. I currently run a light Workstation built from the ground up and based around an AMD FX 6300 processor that was initially configured with 16 GB of DDR3 RAM, a 1 TB HD, a 630W power supply, a fast DVD/RW Optical Drive, a reasonably decent NVIDIA graphics card, (including a NZXT 210 Elite Mid Tower, and an ASUS M5A97 R2.0 mobo.) We built an identical pair of computers for a tad over $600 each. We have since upgraded each computer by adding a 275 GB SSD and added another 16GB of RAM bring the total to 32GB. Had we gone with an i5 or i7 we'd have blown the budget right out the gate.

Now if I were into GAMING... I'd opt for a top of the line Intel i7, a fast video card etc., but the video card alone would have cost more than what out entire system cost. I think that the upper end AMD Ryzen Processors, plus the new DDR4 RAM are going to be game changers, even -- if what I have read is correct -- if you are into gaming.
I have been reading more and listening less to my colleague with an Intel fixation and, while I am still not convinced, it does appear that Ryzen may actually be decent CPUs.
I think the issue has been with AMD making noises which seemed to imply that they were going for high gaming performance (single-core, instructions per clock cycle) then not quite getting there against Intel.
I'll wait until a couple of microcodes have been released, the prices have evened out, the TDPs have been checked and the like then decide.

Have to admit I was wrong as AMD are still in the game even if they've not delivered a win.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel to AMD humanveal Linux - Hardware 2 01-23-2006 11:51 PM
Intel or AMD? hjl Linux - Hardware 1 03-03-2005 08:26 AM
AMD's better than intel? e1000 Linux - Hardware 33 12-14-2003 11:42 PM
AMD over Intel. Harpune Linux - Hardware 8 01-15-2003 09:58 PM
AMD or Intel ugge Linux - General 6 06-29-2001 12:19 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration