First time build...how's this look?

[BandD]

This will be a first time computer build for me. I want it to to be somewhat "future proof" hence the mobo that supports usb3. I'm not really a gamer, but do some GIMPing and other photo rendering tasks. I want/need 3D rendering capabilities for Compiz and Docky, nothing too crazy. I'll have to add some memory to the list (most likely 4GB-6GB). Linux based distros will be the only OSes this machine will run--primarily Ubuntu. Any advice or feedback would be great!

Processor: AMD Phenom ii X2 (most likely black edition)
Power Supply: Seasonic SS-560KM
Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-870A-UD3
Graphics: GIGABYTE GV-N84STC-512I Rev2.0 GeForce 8400


Thanks!

[youbuntu]

This will be a first time computer build for me. I want it to to be somewhat "future proof" hence the mobo that supports usb3. I'm not really a gamer, but do some GIMPing and other photo rendering tasks. I want/need 3D rendering capabilities for Compiz and Docky, nothing too crazy. I'll have to add some memory to the list (most likely 4GB-6GB). Linux based distros will be the only OSes this machine will run--primarily Ubuntu. Any advice or feedback would be great!

Processor: AMD Phenom ii X2 (most likely black edition)
Power Supply: Seasonic SS-560KM
Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-870A-UD3
Graphics: GIGABYTE GV-N84STC-512I Rev2.0 GeForce 8400


Thanks!

Personally, if I wanted a trouble-free install, I'd be inclined to lean towards Intel based graphics - you won't see a difference, judging by what you say you'll be doing with it. AMD = ATI = "uh ohhh" (IMHO).

[Dustin2128]

Do you even have to have a USB 3 motherboard? I thought you could just buy a PCI/e USB 3.0 card and you'd be set. Anyway, that's just me, but if you want to futureproof it, I'd go with at least a GeForce 9600 GT.

Personally, if I wanted a trouble-free install, I'd be inclined to lean towards Intel based graphics - you won't see a difference, judging by what you say you'll be doing with it. AMD = ATI = "uh ohhh" (IMHO).
:lolflag:

[CharlesA]

Do you even have to have a USB 3 motherboard? I thought you could just buy a PCI/e USB 3.0 card and you'd be set. Anyway, that's just me, but if you want to futureproof it, I'd go with at least a GeForce 9600 GT.

+1. I'd rather spend 30-40 bucks for an expansion card then 600+ for a new rig (unless I really needed one)

[youbuntu]

Do you even have to have a USB 3 motherboard? I thought you could just buy a PCI/e USB 3.0 card and you'd be set. Anyway, that's just me, but if you want to futureproof it, I'd go with at least a GeForce 9600 GT.

:lolflag:


@ which part did you lollerise? :lol:

[Dustin2128]

@ which part did you lollerise? :lol:
intel based graphics- nobody would willingly use intel graphics, right?

[BandD]

My current desktop is a 2002 or 2003 emachine. It only supports up to 516 MB ram, PCI-e slots are all full (only 2). The mobo listed is less than $100 and has good reviews on newegg.

@glossywhite I have an intel chipset in both my laptop and my current desktop, both of which are far from flawless at this point in Ubuntu's development. I thought I'd give Nvidia a go. The card listed is only $30. ATI is a no go hence an AMD mobo that doesn't contain onboard graphics and the Nvidia card.

Thanks for the input thus far. No one has said that these components are trash or incompatible so I guess I did my homework to some extent!

[Paqman]

intel based graphics- nobody would willingly use intel graphics, right?

Given that AMD cards still suck somewhat, and Nvidia ones have started to suck on laptops, and will suck on everything when we switch to Wayland, I wouldn't put money on this.

[youbuntu]

I have an Acer X3950 i3 with Intel graphics, and Ubuntu & all other distros work flawlessly. I'll take flawless, less GPU and working, over powerful and buggy, thanks :P

[Dustin2128]

Given that AMD cards still suck somewhat, and Nvidia ones have started to suck on laptops, and will suck on everything when we switch to Wayland, I wouldn't put money on this.
Suck somewhat compared to functional variants of dedicated cards. Compared to intel graphics? A brand new laptop my friend owns, dual core, 3GB DDR3, intel "graphics card", runs oblivion, a 5 year old game that runs comfortably on GeForce 6200s in wine, like a slideshow on minimum settings. Not to mention, when playing some of the uberintensive games that it can handle (Original doom, quake II) it overheats in the extreme. There are even some aspects of the ioquake3 engine that it can't handle! And @glossywhite, all of the various nvidia cards I've owned over the years have run flawlessly. My one linux machine with an intel card crashes all the time with any compositing at all. Not a problem cause it's my file server, but still.

[youbuntu]

Having seen that the OP states games are not important... ya know...

[Paqman]

Suck somewhat compared to functional variants of dedicated cards. Compared to intel graphics? A brand new laptop my friend owns, dual core, 3GB DDR3, intel "graphics card", runs oblivion, a 5 year old game that runs comfortably on GeForce 6200s in wine, like a slideshow on minimum settings. Not to mention, when playing some of the uberintensive games that it can handle (Original doom, quake II) it overheats in the extreme. There are even some aspects of the ioquake3 engine that it can't handle!

Nobody's suggesting you should run games on an Intel GPU. The OP specifically said the only thing they wanted 3D for was compositing.

[Dustin2128]

I know that, but intel GPUs have, in my experience, been notoriously unstable when compositing, not to mention that even for non game stuff, a lot of applications are taking advantage of the ridiculous amount of power available to dedicated GPUs.

[youbuntu]

That's most odd. The ONLY GPUs I always have no problems with, are Intel ones. Ever.

[Dustin2128]

That's most odd. The ONLY GPUs I always have no problems with, are Intel ones. Ever.
Threadjacking, but what kind of problems have you had with nvidia GPUs?

[youbuntu]

Threadjacking, but what kind of problems have you had with nvidia GPUs?

I cannot possibly recall all models & issues @ 01:25am, sorry. Less than ATI, suffice to say.

[Dustin2128]

I cannot possibly recall all models & issues @ 01:25am, sorry. Less than ATI, suffice to say.
Nouveau or blob?

[youbuntu]

Nouveau or blob?

refer to my last post...

[3Miro]

I own several computers. I have a laptop with Intel video, I have a desktop with AMD780 Gigabyte Motherboard and I am using integrated ATI Radeon4250 video and I also have a desktop with Nvidia GTX 260. When it comes to Linux and video, here is my take:

Intel: better than nothing, runs compiz, but barely. Forget about emerald. The only games that run are old 2D games (by games I mean wine).

ATI: for 4000 (I guess newer ones too), don't even bother with the proprietary driver. The FOSS (default) one is quite nice, compiz runs on full speed with emerald cylinders and so on.

I have heard bad things about older ATI cards, I wouldn't use those.

Nvidia: The only disadvantage is that you have to use proprietary driver, but you get all compiz effects and wine games run as good as they can.

When Nvidia is an option, I would take it, but ATI is improving with great speed and it will not be too long before they are head to head in the Linux world.

To the OP: in your original list, you did not mention how much RAM you would be getting. Linux can really utilize a lot of RAM, so the more the better.

For the CPU, I have phenom II X4 and X6 and I love both (although X6 is much much better), but for X2, you can probably get 4 cores from an Athlon II at the same price. Depending on what you are going to be using your machine for, 2 extra cores may be better than the extra cache.

[JDShu]

Wait, whats with the misinformation here? AMD cards using r300-r700 chipsets work flawlessly for compositing. Its gaming that they suck at.

[Rasa1111]

Gonna have to go with glossy white on this one.
If games are not ones focus..
I've found the Intel to be the best, and most hassle free.


Intel: better than nothing, runs compiz, but barely. Forget about emerald.

lol what?

I run all you mention and more, flawlessly on my Thinkpad Z61t. Intel.
Only "3D game" Ive ever played on it was "Vendetta"..
but that to.. played and worked/looked perfect.

and this is a 5 year old machine now. :rolleyes:
Why you spreading rubbish? lol

[NovaAesa]

Good choices I'd say. Especially the GeForce 8400, that card's been the best card I've ever had with Linux. It's powerful enough for most things except for high end gaming, and with the binary drivers everything works straight up including dual screens (which was a pain in the *** with my ati card).

[BandD]

@3Miro and @NovaAesa Thank you both for the straight forward feedback. I was really hoping that this wouldn't turn into a "Intel is better than amd. ATI rocks Nvidia sucks. Intel integrated all the way! No that suck. Nvidia is the best!" flame war. I just wanted some real world feedback on the components I mentioned in the OP.

I appreciate the concern of the cost of integrated vs. GPU, but the card I'm going with is pretty darn cheap and should out preform any integrated chipset out there. While today's intergrated chips may be able to handle Compiz and other compositing required apps, I'm not sure that they will 3-5 years down the line. "Future Proof" is the name of the game. PCI options should provide that for quite sometime. Integrated is integrated and just becomes extra baggage after a while.

[Paqman]

While today's intergrated chips may be able to handle Compiz and other compositing required apps, I'm not sure that they will 3-5 years down the line. "Future Proof" is the name of the game.

As an Nvidia 8xxx user myself, i'm not really sure they are that future proof. How Nvidia fits in with Wayland is still an open question. I'm not really very confident that nouveau will be up to scratch by the time it's needed.

But for now at least Nvidia is still the best choice.