Who's more linux-friendly, intel or AMD??

[Drycola]

Hi,

As I remember, there were some companies that stand beside Linux, while others stood against Linux.

I just wonder if AMD is more a 'friend' for Linux than Intel???

[Sef]

Moved to community chat.

[Ylon]

Tricky question, both company make stuff for linux and are in deep affair with Microsoft.


Anyway, Intel is also in business with Nokia to build meego/maemo. A linux platform for running against the Windows Mobile stuff.


On the other side: amd is, through ati, in affair with Microsoft Xbox 360.


So, my guess that Intel is generically more trust-able than AMD.


Consider this: is not just matter how your hardware stuff work with linux. ATI(/AMD) cards work better with opensource driver (for example): but this work is made by OpenSource community.. not AMD.

Also Intel released the USB3 driver for Linux before anyone!

[EarthMind]

There's also this little thread I created in the past:

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16342

[NMFTM]

I think I remember reading somewhere that RMS recommends buying AMD over Intel. A quick Google search didn't bring up the article though.

[Drycola]

WOW! Thanks for these interesting & quick answers! :KS


... reading somewhere that RMS recommends ...

What exactly is RMS? :confused:

[paydaydaddy]

RMS=Richard Mathew Stallman head of the gnu-linux project. Do a google search and read. Opinions on the man vary greatly. His genius is undeniable.

[blueturtl]

Intel makes CPUs, chipsets and GPUs that work natively in Linux. All OSS drivers.

AMD makes CPUs, chipsets and GPUs that work natively in Linux. All OSS drivers.

You can't lose with either.

AMD owns ATi though, and ATi for the time being has more robust hardware than Intel in the GPU department. The drivers for both Intel and AMD/ATi graphics are still a bit immature though.

[WinterRain]

I always use AMD cpu's. More bang for your $$$.

[phrostbyte]

They are both pretty Linux friendly, at least compared to the average hardware company. Both companies have contributed actual money and software to making Linux a better operating system.

[Frak]

RMS=Richard Mathew Stallman head of the gnu-linux project. Do a google search and read. Opinions on the man vary greatly. His genius is undeniable.
rofl

Neither are better than the other. They make a processor, which should run any compatible code.

[kevin11951]

rofl

Neither are better than the other. They make a processor, which should run any compatible code.

Are you seriously saying RMS is not a genius? He may not be Einstein... but hes up there...

[sydbat]

Are you seriously saying RMS is not a genius? He may not be Einstein... but hes up there...I am seriously saying RMS is NOT a genius. That would be insulting to people who are actual geniuses (like Stephen Hawking)!

[98cwitr]

i have both...I prefer Intel in my main system and server...AMD for more budget builds. 'nuff said.

[-humanaut-]

I've had little problems with either. I personally prefer AMD processors over Intel.

[NMFTM]

I am seriously saying RMS is NOT a genius. That would be insulting to people who are actual geniuses (like Stephen Hawking)!
Measurements of intelligence are pretty arbitrary and IQ tests aren't necessarily an accurate measurement of how well you can do a certain job. Designing a free replacement for an entire proprietary operating system (minus the kernal) is not an easy task. Neither is pulling together the people and resources needed to do it.

I doubt that Hawking would make for a good hacker or Stallman would excel at creating theoretical mathematical equations to solve scientific issues of an interstellar proportion.

I will admit that I'm slightly baised, but from a utilitarian point of view. Stallman created an operating system (minus the kernal) that is used by millions of people every day to get actual work done. But while the theories behind black holes may be interesting to read about, they're not of any actual practical benefit.

[handy]

AMD have opened up the technical info' on all of their ATi GPUs & are helping with the development of the OSS drivers for Linux.

This is winning them a lot of friends.

[OrbJinzo]

For being more Open AMD is the winner for that. For sheer non-headacheness for Linux Intel is way better. You gotta consider that the x86 Intel architecture is what the kernel was originally based on. AMD has only cloned it and still has a couple issues. Im not a fanboy of Intel my laptop runs and AMD processor. and my last desktop was an AMD based one.

[gradinaruvasile]

The price/performance ratio is better on AMD processors - Intels OTOH are faster and reportedly use less power in general.

But when considering the CPUs you also have to look at the motherboards that support it:

Both manufacturers support their CPUs for Linux.

Intel motherboards have crappy integrated graphics (and not that good Linux drivers) - AMD mobos have way better integrated graphics (and better Linux drivers) - the variants with nvidia 8200/8300 onboard are really useful in Linux. This is interesting only if you dont have/want an add-on PCIex card.

As for graphics in general, nvidia is the only video card manufacturer that has truly rock solid drivers. So use whatever solution, but for video card use nvidia if you want truly good Linux desktop experience.

I have an ASUS M3N78-VM mobo (AMD socket AM2/3) with integrated nvidia 8200 - a match made in heaven for Linux if you dont want to play more demanding games - has VDPAU hardware h264 decoding support too for HD movies in Linux, HDMI video out, DVI+VGA video out ports - also supports 2 monitors.

[djsroknrol]

Out of the 7 motherboards I've had in the last 5 years, 2 were AMD and the other 3 were Intel. I can say that the Intel boards worked flawlessly (including the one that I'm running now) while the AMD boards were temperamental at times in boot up and operation in Linux.

The next board I get will likely be another Intel.

[Cam42]

Out of the 7 motherboards I've had in the last 5 years, 2 were AMD and the other 3 were Intel. I can say that the Intel boards worked flawlessly (including the one that I'm running now) while the AMD boards were temperamental at times in boot up and operation in Linux.

The next board I get will likely be another Intel.

The remaining two?

I'm an Intel guy, myself. Not sure why, though.

AMD is better for budget builds, however.

[WinterRain]

Are you seriously saying RMS is not a genius? He may not be Einstein... but hes up there...

Did Einstein eat his toe-cheese too?

[Frak]

Did Einstein eat his toe-cheese too?
Milk-shooting-out-of-nose

[kevin11951]

Did Einstein eat his toe-cheese too?

Oh c'mon, give the guy a break, we all know there is a fine line between Genius and Crazy! ;)

[3rdalbum]

AMD is not as open.

Intel makes official open-source graphics drivers for any of the cards it has created. AMD has opened up some of the specifications for its graphics cards, but not all; and the ATI proprietary graphics driver is still severely lacking compared to Nvidia's.

[lisati]

RMS=Richard Mathew Stallman head of the gnu-linux project. Do a google search and read. Opinions on the man vary greatly. His genius is undeniable.

There's another meaning of RMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square) :D

Of the x86-capable machines I've ever had, 5 have had Intel, 1 has AMD. Inside the first one I ever had was a z80-based network card that I never got round to using.

[phrostbyte]

Did Einstein eat his toe-cheese too?

He did divorce his wife to marry his cousin. He didn't really believe in hygiene either. :)

Smart people are kind of crazy usually.

RMS is definitely some kind of insane prodigy. He got a perfect SAT score and graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard, with a degree in Physics no less. If he did decide to pursue Physics, he probably would be been up there with the greats.

Thankfully he didn't though. ;)

[consindo]

Probably Intel as they have done 6.9% of Linux kernel development whilst AMD have done 1.1% of development. Intel have fantastic graphics drivers and they have MeeGo so I would say probably Intel.

[amitabhishek]

Intel. Though I prefer AMD.

[Swagman]

For being more Open AMD is the winner for that. For sheer non-headacheness for Linux Intel is way better. You gotta consider that the x86 Intel architecture is what the kernel was originally based on. AMD has only cloned it and still has a couple issues. Im not a fanboy of Intel my laptop runs and AMD processor. and my last desktop was an AMD based one.

But AMD designed the 64 bit extension which intel has to licence back.
That's why it's called AMD64

[tfultz33]

Which company do you think is more libertarian? More likely not to spy on you or restrict copy protection or other such Intellectual property rights malarky? Or use government force to gain a monopoly?

[elvinatom]

I am sad to have to admit that AMD is not as open as often claimed, especially in the GPU field (I'd never run an ATI card under Linux free willingly), but still, I refuse to support Intel. They are as corrupt as a big corp can get. Consider this: without competition, we're all slaves to the big guy, his moods and his mercy. And the big guy is not on your side:


Which company do you think is more libertarian? More likely not to spy on you or restrict copy protection or other such Intellectual property rights malarky? Or use government force to gain a monopoly?

That's what seals the deal for me.

[JDShu]

I am sad to have to admit that AMD is not as open as often claimed, especially in the GPU field (I'd never run an ATI card under Linux free willingly),

Just because their drivers currently suck doesn't mean that they're not being open.