No need to apologize - that's what messageboards are for! Yes X570 and B550 as chipsets should be basically equivalent, the bigger thing to worry about is the specific board you're getting - especially if you're looking at a heftier CPU, make sure you get something with a robust VRM section (sadly there are some 'el cheapo' X570 boards where the entire selling point of the board is 'hey look, X570!' - while there are also some pretty ridiculous B550 boards there that may go overlooked because 'not the flagship' - modern 'chipsets' are mostly just I/O expansion anyways, so it isn't like the olden days where you absolutely need the flagship chip, but it also means the flagship chipped boards aren't always the flagship product overall and so on).


And if there's one thing that's been consistently true about NAND/SSDs - they get cheaper every year. So currently I think 1TB SATA SSD is probably the 'sweet spot' for an all-in-one solution, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years its all NVME at current (or lower) SATA prices.



There's a lot of brand loyalty to Intel - they shipped a lot of good products over the years, and often with very stable drivers and platforms. That said, AMD is not the 'cut rate knock-off' that it often gets painted as, and with a minimal price difference the newer chip *is* better. Just don't fall for the gougers.



I agree with this kind of reasoning - what I'm saying when I say 'future proofing is impossible' is a reality check on folks who think its a buy-one-cry-once scenario where you go out and spend $3500 USD (or more) on all the most expensive stuff you can get your arms around, and then you will always be able to run everything 'maxed out' for some indeterminite (or infinite) length of time. I'm not saying buy the cheapest possible stuff, but there is a 'diminishing returns' point where spending more isn't going to make a difference.

Here's a real-world example that may help: buying a GeForce GTX 1080 or a 1080 Ti in 2016. There's nothing the 1080 Ti can do, that the 1080 cannot do, the 1080 is just a bit slower. So is the 1080 Ti 'more futureproof' or not? In practice they will be dropped from support at the same time, they have the same underlying feature-set, etc, That's basically what I'm saying.


Bits to unpack here:

- The distros you're looking at are known as 'fixed' or 'point' releases - they release a 'version' of the OS that is set to a specific kernel, and then maintain it up. To have the latest-and-greatest you would need a 'rolling release' distro - SparkyLinux comes to mind as something based on Debian. The other option is to just wait - Ubuntu releases intermediate (non-LTS) distros every 6 months, 20.10 just came out, and 21.04 will be along soon enough.

- The games you've described could all be run on a 20 year old GeForce 3 - a 5700XT would probably not even come out of 'idle' for them. I know from experience that Total Annihilation works well under Wine, I believe there's a native port of Half-Life (or one of its re-masters), and the others I've either never played or never bothered to get working on linux (it may be sacrilege but I maintain an old P4 running Windows XP specifically to handle old software from 20 years ago, admittedly most of it games). You can check them against wineHQ (https://appdb.winehq.org/) or ProtonDB if they're available to you in Steam (https://www.protondb.com/). If that's roughly where you're at in terms of 3D requirements, I'd probably back the GPU down a few steps, while staying in a 'modern' generation - so look to something like an RX 5500 or maybe even a GTX 1650 if you want to consider nVidia. The reason you'd want to stay 'modern' is for the video codec and driver support, but nothing you've listed there is much of a chore for any modern GPU (some of those games aren't even 3D).

You are most kind.

This is interesting and a detail I have not thought about at all, so how would I go about to find out how robust the VRM is?
Did a quick search but noting came up but I will keep looking in to it.

I am not aiming for the most badass board nor one from to bottom, something in the middle. To narrow down the search a bit more, any specific brands to avoid?



I am somewhat one of them and when I at first found out the advances AMD had done over the years I decided to have a look at at AMD, and now I am looking in to getting one.



This explained it very nicely, thank you.
I will stick with Ubuntu 20.04 and Linux Mint 20 as they are the distros I am familiar with and changing now would probably not be a good idea.


The games you've described could all be run on a 20 year old GeForce 3 - a 5700XT would probably not even come out of 'idle' for them.[/QUOTE] I giggled some because you are right and it did not occur to me when I wrote it.

It is not sacrilege at all, this is some serious stuffs! Those old games are just amazing will forever live on!

I forgot all about WineHQ, steam and ProtonDB as I have been occupied with other stuffs, thanks for reminding me.

Well, no. There is a few games out there like Crysis, Far cry, Project cars and of course I just have to try out the remastrad Quake II, though not all the most demanding games as well. Then there is a some more games out there that is of interest to me that a Radeon 5700XT will be 'too powerful' for which actually surprises me. Considering the monitors I am interested in will require a bit more power of a graphic card, so I will give it some more thought.

The kind of not-great answer is "find reviews that mention this" - on youtube there's a channel called 'Buildzoid' that discusses VRMs in-depth, and I believe the GamersNexus website/zine partners with them for additional coverage. There is at least something to be said for 'eyeballing it' or reading the mfgr's specifications - usually the better-built boards will have the VRM called out by marketing, and will have visible heatsinks and a relatively large # of power stages (more than 6), while the cheapo boards will usually not have the VRM called out by marketing, lack heatsinks, etc. Like I said, 'kind of not-great answer'...

To avoid? Tough to say specifically - I know some of the cheaper offerings from BioStar and MSI haven't had the best reputation, but I also know BioStar has never been wildly popular, and dumping on MSI is kind of en vogue right now (for unrelated reasons - they've done some shady things with recent graphics card launches and PR and it's incited people). But that doesn't mean 'all of their products are bad' - everyone releases sub-par stuff at some point (even the 'big guys' like Asus and Gigabyte). I think we're, thankfully, past the era of really junk-tier boards like PC Chips or ECS back in the day.


Not a bad strategy, but OTOH why not play around with other offerings? Worst case you're just re-installing to a distro/image you know to work...

Something to add: there's going to be essentially no difference between 5700XT and one of the lesser models like 5500XT or 5600 when it comes to display support, apart from total # of monitors supported, and the real differences will really come down to GPGPU compute performance and 3D performance. Now, if the 5700XT is within your budget and ticks all the other boxes for you, great, but if you can get the same outcome with a 5500XT (or some such) you'll also likely end up with a cooler/quieter machine and save a few bucks too. Also remember there are non-XT 5700s that tend to run around $100 USD less and are pretty close in performance.

Thanks for mentioning 'Buildzoid,' though I have not yet checked out their channel but I keep it in my bookmarks bar for the upcoming week. I did notice some marketing for VRM's on a few boards I got my eye on which I now find more interesting because you mentioned it.
Sorry but what is "mfgr's"?
I did some more research on motherboards and it seems that the Realtek 2.5 Gbit network adapter does not work quite well yet but the Intel one does. As far as I know I have no need for a 2.5 Gbit network so if the board only have a 1 Gbit do not matter to me but I think I will keep off the Realtek 2.5 Gbit adapter.



[QUOTE]BioStar and MSI haven't had the best reputation,But that doesn't mean 'all of their products are bad' - everyone releases sub-par stuff at some point (even the 'big guys' like Asus and Gigabyte). [QUOTE]
BioStar have I never heard of and as far as MSI goes I skip as well. Never had anything from MSI my self but everyone I know who ever have owned a MSI product have been dissatisfied with it. Of course this do not mean that all products are bad as you say, still I will pass on the MSI boards.




An idea I had when I first started using Ubuntu but Ubuntu it self was really though to learn as it is completely different from Windows. Might get back to that when I got my new machine up and running.



The 5700XT is within my budget and from the beginning the 6000 series was what I had budgeted for and ticks most boxes, still a few 'not so important' left to check. Comparing the 5700 XT and the 5600 XT I would say that it is a big step down followed but a equal bit step down in cost (did not do the math all to thoroughly). But of course you are right again if I can find a GPU for a lower price that do the same it could be interesting. From what I can see the differences in price for XT and non-XT at the 5700 and 5600 series (very few non XT around now)is about 10-40 Euros depending on the brand and for me that is a no brainer.

Not counting antiques with 32bit CPUs, or laptops, I have:

• Apple: 1
• Asrock: 1
• Asus: 5
• Biostar: 2
• Dell (typically Foxconn OEM): 9
• eCS: 1
• Gigabyte: 2
• HP (both Asus OEM): 2
• MSI: 3

The Mac was 9 years old with a fried HD when it was given to me. It's a nightmare to replace its disk, but it works. The Asrock was acquired used. It has latest BIOS, and has annoying quirks. I bought an Asrock 12 or 15 years ago that had to be replaced under warranty, which Asrock did with a newer model, which died after about five years of only occasional use. Only one Asus was acquired new. Two have or had niggling issues not solved by BIOS updates. One built for another was retired around a year or two after warranty expired because it got flaky for a while and then would no longer POST. A year or so after owner gave it to me I gave it a scrubbing bath to remove the cigarette goo. That gave it new life. Both Biostars were acquired new and have been solid. Every Dell I acquired used. Two have required power supply replacements, but otherwise all have been reliable. The eCS is somewhere around 13 years old, running 24/7 except for downtime for recapping quite some years ago. It replaced a PCChips acquired new that died shortly after the warranty expired. Between the Gigabytes, one was acquired new, and both have been solid. Both HPs were acquired used. One needed recapping before I could use it. Two MSIs were acquired used and have been mechanically solid. One has an NVIDIA® MCP61 (6150SE) chipset, which has proven problematic for Xorg, and neither played particularly well with a GeForce card that has since been working fine in one of the Gigabytes. I'm typing this from the purchased new Haswell MSI that's been running 24/7 for over five years without any issue. It replaced a Foxconn that ran 24/7 solidly past its warranty before it needed some recapping that preserved it a few years before it would no longer POST.

What would I buy next? Definitely Asrock would be last choice, based on personal experiences, and its (shortest) age as a company. Considering experience with PCs I built for others, I lean toward Gigabyte as first choice for next new purchase, followed by MSI and Biostar in no small part because Asus' web site has consistently been the most aggravating of the bunch.

Sorry, 'mfgrs' = 'manufacturers' - just shorthand.

Totally anecdotal but IME: Intel and Broadcom NICs tend to be the widest support in terms of driver availability/everything 'just works' - Realtek is usually a close 2nd/3rd place. It isn't surprising that the newer 2.5G/5G stuff is less widely supported - its still fairly uncommon (and a lot of switches apparently don't support it at those speeds either, even if they do 10G).



So, to add to this: basically all linux OSes have underlying similarities, so it doesn't matter which one(s) you learn on. There will be UI differences like GNOME (Ubuntu) vs XFCE (Xubuntu) or whathaveyou, and systemd vs non-systemd distros have some slight differences in how some services are handled/organized (I'm not trying to start the holy war in this thread), but otherwise there's going to be a lot more similarities between say, Ubuntu, Slackware, and Red Hat than vs Windows. So as long as your data is backed up and you have the time, it doesn't hurt to distro hop and try things out. Just food for thought.



Ah, in that case yes I would just go with the XT. And yes the 5600 will be a bigger step down.

I have a few responses here:
1) I fully agree that Asus' website is awful, and they've recently started purging anything 'old' as well, so good luck finding documentation or similar for various products. I've never understood how they manage with such a non-functional, slow, and broken website - years ago I remember the joke was it had to be hosted on a Pentium II in someone's basement, but 20 years on and its never changed...

2) FWIW ASRock appears to have gone through some 'big transformation' a few years ago - the ASRock of the early/mid-2000s was very much a 'value brand' that produced a lot of weird boards, but the modern ASRock seems to produce stuff that rivals Asus and Gigabyte on many fronts (I have a few motherboards from the 'newer' side that are quite nice). I'm not sure what changed for them, but it's been for the better.

I'd agree with Gigabyte not being objectionable - I never seem to hear people complaining about Gigabyte (for whatever that's worth). I'd probably add SuperMicro to that list as well, but I don't know if they make AM4 motherboards.

I've never had one given to me, and any time I've shopped, no Supermicro model has offered what I was looking for.

Up until relatively recently they only tended to make server/workstation boards, and that's where my experience with them has been (and they've all been solid - my main desktop uses one of them actually), but they've started to venture into making desktop boards (they're more 'gaming oriented' it seems - so more like Asus ROG or ASRock Fatal1ty or MSI MEG), which apparently retain the quality they're known for. I'm not sure if they' done a Ryzen board yet though - I've only read about a pair of Intel boards based on Z390 and Z490 respectively.

Thank you for adding this much useful information. I got 2 ASUS laptops which is running just fine, oldest one is now 5 years (dual booting both, mainly using Linux). On my old home computer of which I am replacing I have ASUS motherboard that have run for 10+ years and still works fine and the board before that was also an ASUS and also worked great for many years. Because of this I do tend to look more at the ASUS boards, however I do have been looking in to Gigabyte boards and they seem very nice except that most of them are using the Realtek 2.5 Gbit network adapter and those adapters seem to not be that well supported yet.



Thank you.


I looks like that Intel have their own Linux drivers and I hope they can be downloaded upon install of Ubuntu, got to check that, if not I just have to download it and transfer it over via USB. I kind of favouring Intel right now,



When I first started to look into Linux it was overwhelming with how many distros there is and Ubuntu was the only one I recognised so naturally I went for Ubuntu and then Linux Mint as I like the Cinnamon desktop. These two where also always on every singel list of 'Go to as beginners distros' together with Red Hat and different flavors of Ubuntu. Many other distors looked to me for your 'hard core Linux users' that only uses the Terminal and thinks that a GUI 'is not' Linux. (Do not mean to offend anyone, just my original feeling)
I have an WD Raptor drive that I think I will use for trying out different dristors to avoid "damaging" the main OS.




I agree about the website, still I will for good or worse still look at their boards.


Interesting, two different opinions on ASRock and from my side I only know they by name and have no knowledge of their reputation, could be worth looking in to.



From were I am the SuperMicro are only available as server boards.


I watched the 'Buildzoid' on motherboards and VRMs, really great video, thank you.
I am keeping up the search for boards, it is slow but moving forward.

hajnyckel,

In the past I used to only use Gigabyte boards with Intel CPUs. More recently I have found MSI boards (AMD) to be of decent quality, especially the B450 Tomahawk MAX.

As obobskivich related above, ASRock quality appears to have improved in recent times according to anecdotal evidence.

You mentioned the 2.5GB LAN possibly being problematic in Linux.

This MSI B550 board has two LANs, Realtek RTL8125B 2.5G LANRealtek RTL8111H Gigabit LAN:
https://asset.msi.com/pdf/main/globa...-B550-TOMAHAWK