Linux users and AMD chips

[Toadmund]

I'm not sure, but it seems to me that linux users have a thing for AMD processors. Is it because linux users don't always follow the herd, want to go their own way and see value for their $$$'s?
Or, am I just perceiving this, this way because I just seek AMD related info for my comp?

No 'intel' in here.

I use an AMD64 3200 myself.

[teaker1s]

personally I dislike intels business methods and previous chipsets
asking for this post to be moved to cafe/backyard

[Sef]

Moving to Community Cafe.

[igknighted]

I use AMD chips because I get roughly similar performance to intel at a fraction of the price. Plus I like the bios's that I have had with AMD chips (AWARD bios for all of them I believe) better than intel ones (an actual intel bios). For $150 I got the chip in my sig along w/ a tForce 550 mobo... not top of the line, but not bargain basement quality either. For a comparable mobo/processor from intel's c2d lineup (would have been a little bit quicker) I would have had to spend upwards of $400 (all figures in USD). I know intel's prices are coming down in April, but I had the money to upgrade in Febuary and I don't save spare money for months very well ;-).

[~LoKe]

I use an Intel chip, because it's the best value for the money.

[Ric95]

I got the amd64 because at the time, Intel didn't yet have 64 bit (at least not for reasonable desktop use).
Then M$ didn't have a worth 64 bit os either, so to get full power I learned about Linux.
Now that Intel has good processors and M$ has Vista, I have learned enough not to bother with them.
I still prefer the way AMD hyperthreads to ram instead of the fsb setup intel uses, and AMDs use less power, and generate less heat.

[Anthem]

Today, Intel's Core architecture is absolutely the way to go. Plus their wireless and graphics drivers are Free, so they work out of the box.

Over the last five years, though, AMD's been pounding Intel in performance per watt and performance per dollar. Linux users tend to be savvy, and they notice these things.

[%hMa@?b<C]

i <3 my opteron
cheapest dual core I could get, love to performance, love the price, better business model.

[~LoKe]

AMDs use less power, and generate less heat.

Not compared to the Core2Duo.

[Toadmund]

I think I am understanding the independent rebel nature of the linux enthusiast, I am one, but still spoilt by windows.:(
Learning, I won't ever get Vista.

Can I assume that AMD 64 support for Ubuntu is chugging right along?
I have problems DL'ing stuff because some stuff is only 32 bit compatable.
Just need re-assurance:neutral:

[Ric95]

Originally Posted by Ric95 View Post
AMDs use less power, and generate less heat.
Not compared to the Core2Duo.
Reply With Quote
If so then I stand corrected. I haven't really looking into it much since I bought this.
But that does raise the issue about thing people should look at before buying. Right now it seems like everything new is wickedly powerful!, but thats typical looking at this industry over a year or so.

[Henry Rayker]

The Core2 Duo processors are based on a 65nm process whereas the AMD processors are still largely based on a 90nm process; additionally, Intel rolled out a new architecture and AMD is still using an older one...The C2D chipsets still use more power at idle (which, given that your computer idles a LOT more often than not) and only slightly less power at full throttle...so I'm inclined to venture a guess that they're really not saving much power using those smaller transistors...

I'm excited to see what kinds of things AMD does when they're ready to release a newer architecture...

[qamelian]

I use an Intel chip, because it's the best value for the money.

Funny. I use AMD for the exact same reason.

[qamelian]

I'm excited to see what kinds of things AMD does when they're ready to release a newer architecture...

Agreed. AMD seldom fails to get my attention. And they never let me down!

[JAPrufrock]

I think I am understanding the independent rebel nature of the linux enthusiast, I am one, but still spoilt by windows.:(
Learning, I won't ever get Vista.

Can I assume that AMD 64 support for Ubuntu is chugging right along?
I have problems DL'ing stuff because some stuff is only 32 bit compatable.
Just need re-assurance:neutral:

Yes, chugging along is a good way to describe it. Check out the forum- x86 64-bit users.

[Shatrat]

I think the main reason is that for many years AMD processors were the most power/dollar and usually the most powerful high end processor, period.
Right now Intel is far and away the leader in both those categories though.
Later this year AMD will release a much improved processor design so it may shift back, but I doubt it because Intel isnt standing still either.

As far as reputations go, I'm impressed by the open source drivers intel has for it's hardware. I dont think any hardware vendor can match them for being linux / bsd friendly. Contrast that with the graphics drivers of AMD's newly purchased ATI division, and AMD comes up looking pretty shabby.
My current machine is an AMD but my next will almost certainly contain as much Intel hardware as possible, chip, motherboard, maybe even graphics.

Check this link out, can AMD come close to this much contribution to open source?
http://oss.intel.com/en-us/projects/

[riven0]

I use AMD and I still prefer it... However, I do admit Intel has them about beat with the Core2Duo. Additionally, their wireless drivers have the best Linux compatibility. I wish AMD would get on the ball already. :|

[drakan290]

I grabbed an Intel Chip, because I found a good price on a 2.8ghz P4 and Motherboard Combo (+ an extra 512mb RAM) for under $100.
Before though, I have had AMD since the K6 chips were out ;]

[Nrvnqsr]

Check this link out, can AMD come close to this much contribution to open source?
http://oss.intel.com/en-us/projects/

Just went and check AMD's site, I only see some linux drivers listed, pretty much convinced me to check Intel's products with alot of consideration in the future.

[bikeboy]

That's because most of what AMD has produces up until now hasn't needed vendor drivers. The CPU certainly doesn't. Intel has a wider product range and some of it needs drivers, eg. wireless cards. Hopefully, with AMD in charge now, the ATI drivers will get a big boost and some openness.

[SishGupta]

To those saying they chose AMD cuz its cheaper/faster/cooler...
The core 2 duo, by benchmark, is actually cheaper, faster, and cooler than AMD at the moment.

I used to be a huge AMD fan. They were the underdog and I loved that about them, they made Intel sweat for a long time and the industry was better because of it. This might be why there are a lot of AMD guys on linux.
I am excited to see AMD's new line of chips coming out soon because hopefully it will be competitive to the c2d.

[Henry Rayker]

To those saying they chose AMD cuz its cheaper/faster/cooler...
The core 2 duo, by benchmark, is actually cheaper, faster, and cooler than AMD at the moment.

I wouldn't give them the "cooler" benchmark. Every set of benchmarks I've looked at has given AMD a clear lead in terms of idle temperature and only a very slight advantage to Intel at full load (and given that you are running at less than full load almost all the time, I'd say AMD still has that one despite the fact that the Intel parts are running on a much smaller [and as a result, more efficient] process platform)

I will concede the cheaper (in terms of cost/unit performance) and the faster, however. Although, Intel's "quad-core" is really just two C2Ds packaged together...AMD's true quad-core will have a much higher benefit over their dual-core parts than Intel's "quad-core" has over their dual-core parts.

[RandomJoe]

In the past, as others pointed out, AMD was a better value price/performance-wise. I considered switching to AMD, and even bought a couple of AMD-based systems. But those two systems were never as stable as my Intel ones. Obviously, considering AMD has a huge and loyal userbase, it was just my luck... :rolleyes: Probably more due to mobo chipsets than anything else, although I did have a few odd software quirks at one time where things that worked perfectly on an Intel machine wouldn't work properly or at all on the AMD systems.

So I have just stuck with Intel ever since, which across a wide range of mobo/CPU combos from cheap to high-end have been rock solid as far as the CPU/chipset is concerned. (I will say that I don't think I've ever had an actual Intel mobo, just their CPU.)

[SonicSteve]

I use AMD partly because I was introduced to them a few years back. The heat thing is a bit of myth I think. It certainly wasn't true in the past. The first athlon chips (pre XP chips) and even some of the XP generated tremendous heat. I probably fried 10 of them unknowingly with inadequate fans. I then learned my lesson.

In the summer I picked up a 64bit Sempron 3000+ and Asus K8V-mx for $135 canadian dollars. It suites my needs well and it was a great deal. No problems with heat. I don't like the s754 heat syncs though. I don't like intels 478 heat syncs either. Both require too much force on the levers to lock them down.

[hardyn]

To those saying they chose AMD cuz its cheaper/faster/cooler...
The core 2 duo, by benchmark, is actually cheaper, faster, and cooler than AMD at the moment.

I used to be a huge AMD fan. They were the underdog and I loved that about them, they made Intel sweat for a long time and the industry was better because of it. This might be why there are a lot of AMD guys on linux.
I am excited to see AMD's new line of chips coming out soon because hopefully it will be competitive to the c2d.

'At the moment is correct'... my AMD machines were purchased when AMDs were cheaper AND faster AND cooler than the intels... this has reversed with the introduction of the 'Core' processors... and it looks like this will be the case for some time. I think just about every Internet magazine has done this comparison.

As i understand it, AMD/ATI are looking to make a change in processor design, (correct me if i am wrong) but GPUs have much better floating point speeds than CPUs right now, and ATI/AMD are looking at building CPUs more like GPUs so if they get this to work... in a few years im sure we will have another performance reversal... AMD will be cheaper and faster than Intel, OR they may not even compete anymore. they have different markets.