Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I'm gonna be building a new compy soon and I'm trying to figure out what I want. I plan to evaluate gaming on linux so I know my best bet for that is something nvidia, correct?
For the CPU, as far as I'm aware AMD processors are better for multi-tasking and less efficient for gaming but I'm curious if this is mostly a Windows related issue. Programs have to be written in such a way to take advantage of hyperthreading and multi-cores right? I'm guessing Linux handles this much better?
AMD CPU's are good for lots of cores on the cheap. Intel CPU's are superior in almost every way though. Clock for clock they crush AMD, they're FAR more energy efficient, built on much newer, smaller fabs, just in every way dominates other than cores/$. It's sad to say, I've always been an AMD fan, but unless you're doing something that SPECIFICALLY requires lots of cores, you'll get better performance from an Intel for the same price.
As far as graphics, if you're going to be running proprietary drivers, Nvidia all the way. AMD drivers are...well...totally trash.
AMD CPU's are good for lots of cores on the cheap. Intel CPU's are superior in almost every way though. Clock for clock they crush AMD, they're FAR more energy efficient, built on much newer, smaller fabs, just in every way dominates other than cores/$. It's sad to say, I've always been an AMD fan, but unless you're doing something that SPECIFICALLY requires lots of cores, you'll get better performance from an Intel for the same price.
As far as graphics, if you're going to be running proprietary drivers, Nvidia all the way. AMD drivers are...well...totally trash.
Thanks for the advice. So even though AMD CPU's have more cores, they will still be out performed than less core Intels for the same price? Power is so cheap the difference of few a hundred watts or so is only a $1-5/month
Sadly, in 90% of usage cases, yes, Intel chips with fewer cores (even including Hyperthreading as a core) will still outperform AMD cpu's. A quad core i5, despite lacking Hyperthreading and thus only having 4 cores, will still EASILY outperform the FX-8320 octo-core in my desktop except in extremely rare use cases. Teh only reason I still have an AMD desktop is because I bought the motherboard 5 years ago with a quad core cpu, and have upgraded it to a hexa-core (Phenom II 1100T) and finally to the octo-core (FX-8320) and was able to keep the same motherboard and ram. So while it's crushed by modern Intel machines, it's still able to play the games I want to play without issues (Nvidia card).
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.