new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

mr.MikyMaus · 2012-05-03 21:45:50

Hi folks,

I found myself in a need for a new computer. I bought my last one more than six years ago and I'm somewhat outdated when it comes to hardware.

As most of my computers were Intel based, I stick with Intel as a reference.

I'd like to set up a Core i5-ish (speaking performance and price) box but I also look for maximum Linux compatibility and performance. Does anyone have a clue which platform is a better base?

The computer should have these parameters:

an i5-ish processor (hi-performance, middle class, whatever you want to call it), virtualization support wanted, low power consumption preferred
linux-compatible chipset with USB3 support, integrated sound and Gbit ethernet
integrated graphics would be nice (but unnecessary)
a TPM chip would be nice as well
hardware encryption (if something like this even exist on common hardware)

could you please give me a hint on

a) maximum Linux compatibility combo (CPU+chipset)
b) maximum performance combo (relative to direct competitors) with fair Linux support (CPU+chipset)

Usage:
multimedia (as in HTPC), occasional multimedia creation (a/v editing, encoding/converting, graphics), filesharing, encryption testing/bruteforcing, occasional gaming (older games, say 2005 and less - one exception: StarCraft II ), and the usual desktop stuff

usability (responsiveness) goes before raw performance

Hints on graphics cards would be appreciated but are not as important as the base platform.

thanks!

-mikky

scarletxfi · 2012-05-04 04:10:09

This is my recently built server:

Intel Core i3 2130
ASUS P8Z68-V LX Motherboard
G.Skill F3-12800CL9Q-16GBRL DDR3
Antec HCG-620W
LeadTek WinFast DTV2000

edit: Nearly forgot not much anymore, but I used to use the server as a TV.

The i3 is surprisingly well balanced performance on a given time I have 2 VMs running (one using 1 core, 32bit, the other using 2 cores 64 bit), so only 1 core left for Host system. using the onboard graphics and xfce when needed.

If you want lowpower consumption then get an intel with the suffix 'S' after the CPU model

According to my UPS I'm using about 350W on average (with 24 HDD's).

The only "problem" I had was the realtek r8168 gigabit lan.if you google it you will find a lot of info on it. That said, as of the latest kernel update (3.3.4) I no longer have issues (though I can't seem to get high LAN perfromace from it.. but I'm working on it) - I am thinking of getting an intel gigabit LAN card.

Another thing to note, is although the motherboard comes with USB3 there is no USB3 header (there are two USB3 ports at the back, they seem to work).

For graphics stick with Intel (most core-iX that you get today have inbuilt graphics) or nVidia as they have better support (last time I checked)

Here is the lspci output.

~ $ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family DRAM Controller (rev 09)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200/2nd Generation Core Processor Family PCI Express Root Port (rev 09)
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 09)
00:16.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family MEI Controller #1 (rev 04)
00:1a.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #2 (rev 05)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 1 (rev b5)
00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 5 (rev b5)
00:1c.5 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 6 (rev b5)
00:1c.6 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 7 (rev b5)
00:1c.7 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev b5)
00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #1 (rev 05)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation Z68 Express Chipset Family LPC Controller (rev 05)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family SATA AHCI Controller (rev 05)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family SMBus Controller (rev 05)
01:00.0 SCSI storage controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic SAS1068E PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS (rev 08)
02:00.0 SCSI storage controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic SAS1068E PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS (rev 08)
04:00.0 USB controller: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1042 SuperSpeed USB Host Controller
05:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 06)
06:00.0 PCI bridge: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1083/1085 PCIe to PCI Bridge (rev 01)
07:02.0 Multimedia video controller: Conexant Systems, Inc. CX23880/1/2/3 PCI Video and Audio Decoder (rev 05)
07:02.1 Multimedia controller: Conexant Systems, Inc. CX23880/1/2/3 PCI Video and Audio Decoder [Audio Port] (rev 05)
07:02.2 Multimedia controller: Conexant Systems, Inc. CX23880/1/2/3 PCI Video and Audio Decoder [MPEG Port] (rev 05)

Last edited by scarletxfi (2012-05-04 04:18:59)

zenlord · 2012-05-04 05:43:10

Last week the newest Intel lineup was announced (3rd gen core i[3/5/7] called 'Ivy Bridge'). Those cpu's are produced at 22nm and thus run cooler and a little faster than the previous gen 'Sandy Bridge'. Intel has as of this platform also native support for USB3.

If I were to chose a new platform for a mid- to highend pc, it would be the Ivy Bridge core i5 3570K, being the first cpu in the line-up (see them all at http://tweakers.net/nieuws/81490/intel- … sors.html) to have the HD4000 GPU on board. I'm very fond of Intel supporting linux with their open source graphics driver, and every new release brings the performance a step closer to AMD/Ati and nVidia. There is still a gap, but only gamers will notice it. For the occasional game, the HD4000 should be sufficient (and that will only get better, because huge efforts are being made to better OpenGL-support for all open source drivers).

Memory is cheap nowadays, so I would suggest to grab 4GB at least. It's amazing how many programs require huge amounts of RAM - it would seem nobody is optimizing their software, depending on the availability of lots of RAM...

For storage I would seriously consider an SSD. Choose a recent 60GB SSD next to a HD for pure storage. Intel has good firmwares.

Motherboard: I don't think you can go wrong here, as long as you stick to the A-list vendors. It might be considered to get one with (U)EFI-support. This successor for the BIOS is superior than the predecessor, but there supposedly are a lot of bugs in the concept. Anyhow: since kernel 3.3 you should be able to boot linux without a bootloader (search the forums for efistub and refind).

In our office, cheaper i3-computers are used. Then again, we only use them for e-mailing, libreoffice and firefox. An SSD-upgrade is in the pipeline, since we saw what a cheap SSD can do to boost the speed (even when our /home and /share-directories are on an NFS-share)...

HTH,
Vincent

baronmax · 2012-05-04 22:51:04

zenlord wrote:

Last week the newest Intel lineup was announced (3rd gen core i[3/5/7] called 'Ivy Bridge'). Those cpu's are produced at 22nm and thus run cooler and a little faster than the previous gen 'Sandy Bridge'. Intel has as of this platform also native support for USB3.
If I were to chose a new platform for a mid- to highend pc, it would be the Ivy Bridge core i5 3570K, being the first cpu in the line-up (see them all at http://tweakers.net/nieuws/81490/intel- … sors.html) to have the HD4000 GPU on board. I'm very fond of Intel supporting linux with their open source graphics driver, and every new release brings the performance a step closer to AMD/Ati and nVidia. There is still a gap, but only gamers will notice it. For the occasional game, the HD4000 should be sufficient (and that will only get better, because huge efforts are being made to better OpenGL-support for all open source drivers).
Memory is cheap nowadays, so I would suggest to grab 4GB at least. It's amazing how many programs require huge amounts of RAM - it would seem nobody is optimizing their software, depending on the availability of lots of RAM...
For storage I would seriously consider an SSD. Choose a recent 60GB SSD next to a HD for pure storage. Intel has good firmwares.
Motherboard: I don't think you can go wrong here, as long as you stick to the A-list vendors. It might be considered to get one with (U)EFI-support. This successor for the BIOS is superior than the predecessor, but there supposedly are a lot of bugs in the concept. Anyhow: since kernel 3.3 you should be able to boot linux without a bootloader (search the forums for efistub and refind).
In our office, cheaper i3-computers are used. Then again, we only use them for e-mailing, libreoffice and firefox. An SSD-upgrade is in the pipeline, since we saw what a cheap SSD can do to boost the speed (even when our /home and /share-directories are on an NFS-share)...
HTH,
Vincent

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in that post...with the exception of the (U)EFI thing. It's kind of a pain to install linux with UEFI, imo. I managed to get it done the other day, but I found the BIOS computers that I have are so much easier. That being said, the EFI stub support in the kernel (3.3 or higher) is really cool and it makes for a super fast boot, but again, it's complex to set up (in my opinion). I don't know how technologically competent you are, but if you're somewhat of a newer person to linux, I'd say go BIOS for now and avoid UEFI. UEFI *looks* amazing and it's easy to set up options for your system, but there are some technical issues that still need to be overcome before I'd really recommend it to the average person.

I would absolutely go with Ivy Bridge over Sandy Bridge, no doubt about it. Newer process, less heat, higher overclocks (if you're into that kind of stuff) and better performance across the board (for virtually the same money). I was an AMD guy for a very long time, but I simply cannot recommend them anymore, at least for general computer usage. If you were doing some hardcore number crunching, there are some specific applications where AMD comes out ahead of Intel, but otherwise Intel pretty much beats AMD hands-down in terms of performance. The AMD+APU chips are interesting, if you don't want to buy a dedicated GPU, but you certainly won't have the performance of a dedicated GPU, obviously, but for just watching videos, youtube, general home theater usage, they are really amazing. Intel does very well in this arena too, but they are still lagging just a bit behind in pure performance of their embedded Graphics Processors. That being said, the open-source support is there and there's no doubt that Intel is much more linux-friendly than AMD. If I had to choose a dedicated GPU, I would almost certainly go with NVidia, currently. I have both ATI (AMD) and NVidia GPUs in my computers, but the NVidia ones seem to be much more linux-friendly, imo.

I noticed that you said you did some a/v editing. I don't know if there are linux apps that support intel's Quick Sync Technology, but if there are, it can DRAMATICALLY increase the speed of your encoding. Here is a page which has benchmarks of some of the newer i5/i7 chips, compared with some of the older ones. Some of those encoding benchmarks are simply amazing...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-3 … ith-z77/17
It's really crazy just how fast QuickSync makes encoding. It even beats out the NVidia 680 GPU in that respect, which is completely mind-blowing, when you consider the pure power of the NVidia GPU compared to the Intel GP.

As for motherboard, I think you'll be good to go as long as you stay with a name brand (as previous poster said). I have several Asus boards that have been rock solid for many years. That's all I buy anymore. It may be difficult to find an Asus without UEFI though, so you may need to look into that, if it's an issue. The intel reference boards are typically very well supported in linux, but sometimes don't offer the features of the higher-end motherboards from other manufacturers, but if it's support and ease of use you're looking for, Intel boards are a good place to start your search. My newest board is an Asus P8P67, which has UEFI, but has done really great with linux. No issues whatsoever with it. I believe it has been updated to support ivy bridge CPUs too, but don't quote me on that. Many of the sandy bridge boards do also support Ivy Bridge, which is nice, in case you find a cheap Sandy Bridge processor and want to upgrade to ivy later.

I would definitely go with SSD for your / drive, if you have the spare cash. The performance is really head and shoulders above SATA. It's something you can feel in everything you do with your computer. You could get away with a very small and cheap drive if you're only using it for /, and then get a SATA for your /home or data drive(s) to prevent wear/tear on your SSD.

RAM...you can never have too much, obviously. I remember back in the day when I thought I'd never need more than 64k of RAM.

I love building new computers, I wish it was time for my next ugprade, but I'm still a ways away, unfortunately.

Best of luck with your new build, I hope you'll post back and let us know what you got and how setup/install went.

mr.MikyMaus · 2012-05-04 23:51:53

Thank you guys, very much. Seriously. All of you pointed out some cool things I would have otherwise overlooked or forgotten completely.

I did some research on my own as well and it pretty much follows your suggestions. I just wanted to have a confirmation from actual, trustworthy users, of which this community is full of

Luckily I have enough cash available to avoid compromises and if I stick with my hardware upgrade period, which is around 6-7 years, I think I go for a high-end-ish box after all. An Ivy Bridge for sure.

Intel it is, and it was a favorite even before but I was quite ignorant in AMD tech so I really appreciate baronmax's comment on AMD, thanks mate!

Also thanks for the EFI hint - I became quite interested in this tech overnight I consider myself a Linux expert so more new cool stuff to explore is just the right thing for me.

At present my dream configuration is:

Core i7-3770: I really like the HD4000 graphics and i7 also has some crypto-enabled instruction set (Intel vPro I think) plus all the current consumer-grade virtualization goodies. Perhaps I'll stick with the S variant, not decided yet as the power consumption is directly related to actual usage and in idle states the CPU's should be alike. Although I'd have to go for better cooling when using the plain variant. i5-3570 has the 4000 graphics, but lacks other functionality - namely encryption instruction set (vPro) and some virtualization goodies.

Graphics: I'll stick with the integrated beauty for starters. An upgrade is always possible if really needed.

Asus P8Z77-V: Has all the features that Z77 chipset offers plus some more nice stuff, like secondary SATAIII and USB3 controllers, Wireless, TPM support, and more. I was thinking about some Gigabyte boards as well but then I found out about their anti-linux attitude. There were also some ASRock boards in game but I really did not like the ASrock web presentation (it looked like a really bad advert). And they said Realtek in their ethernet specs. From Asus pages I felt seriousness - no loud and coloured pictures stating meaningless "Super, Xtreme" crap. Intel boards were nice as well but I really need a D-SUB (got an old 19"CRT which I'm not ready to get rid of just yet - it's a blessing when making some graphics) and at least three output configuration. I scratched out MSI right away as I have really bad experience with this brand.

4GB dual-channel RAM (2x2GB - for starters): I'll pick some supported modules (Asus has a list of "qualified vendors") and extend later if needed.

SSD OCZ Vertex 3, 60 or 90 Gigs: for all but /home/share (where I keep all the data and backups). I also need to have an active Win7 installation though I have not decided yet whether I'll waste some space on the SSD for it or let it rot on the harddrive.

2x2TB HDD for data in Raid1-like configuration (probably done within btrfs), already got one 2TB drive - luckily before those bloody floods.

Some 400W powersource should suffice (I estimate some 300W peak consumption with this configuration).

Now I just need to find some nice LCD panel but that's not linux-related so I won't be asking here for tips.

It will take a couple of weeks before I actually buy this stuff but when I do, I'll update this thread with specs, lspci's and some general compatibility/performance overview hoping that someone else might use that experience to aid their decisions.

Again, thanks for your tips, you've been very, very helpful!

-m.

#edit - typo, HD3000->HD4000

Last edited by mr.MikyMaus (2012-05-05 11:58:51)

twelveeighty · 2012-05-05 01:39:05

mr.MikyMaus wrote:

Graphics: I'll stick with the integrated beauty for starters. An upgrade is always possible if really needed.

This is a question I am struggling with myself, though: is that really an option? My question is more for laptops than desktops, but can you actually turn off the HD3000 and switch to an external Graphics card? Because if you cannot, you're in trouble; since you can't really have both cards running effectively. I am aware of bumblebee, but then you have to explicitly run an app on the external card via the command line.

I know that on Dell laptops, there is not an option in the BIOS to turn off the HD3000. On the Toshiba website, I get redirected to Tech Support if I ask the question to a Live Chat salesperson, which is probably not a good sign. I have heard rumors that it used to be possible on Thinkpads, but no confirmation on more recent laptops.

Am I missing something here, or will this become a huge issue very shortly if all the newer Intel processors/boards now come standard with the HD3000/4000 and you cannot turn them off? That means you either don't use your nVidia/ATI, or you have to run bumblebee, which is both experimental and a nuisance?

zenlord · 2012-05-05 08:14:56

@OP:
1. Ivy Bridge CPU's are equipped with HD4000 GPU's, so if you see a CPU in a price list advertising HD3000, it might be the previous gen Sandy Bridge...
2. SSD: I have an OCZ Vertex2 myself and am very happy with it, but the 'internet community' reports quite a lot of hardware failure with OCZ. I'd recommend the Intel (330) or the Samsung 830. The Crucial M4 is a little bit older, but manages itself very well against the new competitors.

@1280:
laptop BIOS'es are regularly less equipped than desktop counterparts. It should be easy to swith of the integrated GPU (or Intel would lose the whole 'serious gamers'-market). I have never had to use bumblebee, but it seems like something really cool: if you're only browsing, you have the pro's of the integrated GPU (less heat, noise, power consumption) and if neceesary it switches semmlessly to the discrete GPU...

mr.MikyMaus · 2012-05-05 11:58:15

zenlord wrote:

1. Ivy Bridge CPU's are equipped with HD4000 GPU's, so if you see a CPU in a price list advertising HD3000, it might be the previous gen Sandy Bridge...
2. SSD: I have an OCZ Vertex2 myself and am very happy with it, but the 'internet community' reports quite a lot of hardware failure with OCZ. I'd recommend the Intel (330) or the Samsung 830. The Crucial M4 is a little bit older, but manages itself very well against the new competitors.

I meant HD4000 of course. Thanks for correction. As for the OCZ, it just came out as a winner from some test I ran into on the web. I was also thinking about Corsair Force Series 3 and Intel as well but Intel is, at least in our shops, quite more expensive than either OCZ or Corsair. I consider the SSD upgrade a personal test of this tech to find out how much will it increase my productivity, therefore I don't want to invest too much cash into it just yet.

twelveeighty wrote:

Am I missing something here, or will this become a huge issue very shortly if all the newer Intel processors/boards now come standard with the HD3000/4000 and you cannot turn them off? That means you either don't use your nVidia/ATI, or you have to run bumblebee, which is both experimental and a nuisance?

I'd agree with zenlord on this one. It wouldn't make any sense for these hi-end CPU to cripple dedicated GPU performance in any way. The entire integrated graphics stuff is designated "optional" by Intel as it needs mobo support in the first place. So its mobo's job to choose which GPU(s) to use. That said, I expect such option in the "BIOS" settings. I'll include this finding in my report when I get the metal.

-m.

baronmax · 2012-05-05 12:59:54

Concerning the IGP (integrated graphics processor), the way Asus did it is they gave a special designation to the motherboard to denote whether IGP was on, off, or both. On the P-series, it's off. The H series is on. The Z series is both. So, for example, I have a P8P67, so I can't use my IGP, but even though I lose that, I gain additional settings for overclocking, memory tweaking and so forth (P = Performance). There was also a P8H67, which *only* used the IGP, but lacked the overclocking settings and was generally a less expensive board, primarily designed for something like home theater usage, for example. Then there's the P8Z67 which had a BIOS setting for IGP on or off, in addition to the overclocking and memory frequency settings (this wasn't around when I bought my P67, or I'd have gotten this, because it's more up my alley). I am not 100% certain, but I believe this is still the nomenclature Asus uses (P67, H67, Z67), although the model numbers may have changed, I believe the P, H and Z stay the same. Overall, the price difference isn't that great, so I'd definitely recommend the Z-series because you get the best of both worlds. It adds a bit of complexity, but I believe it's worth it.

My girlfriend recently got an AMD with the built in IGP (although I think AMD calls it an APU, but whatever) and she really loves it. She plays World of Warcraft and she can play it on max settings now, which I don't think could be done with the intel IGP (certainly not on the 3000-series, but it may be possible on the 4000 models). Of course then you're stuck with the slower and (slightly) less compatible AMD CPU as well. Most gamers will go for a dedicated GPU due to performance, so the IGP is really a moot point for them.

Anyway, I think your selections should work well together. The one thing I would recommend is a larger power supply. I can't imagine you'd ever need a monster 1000W or anything like that, but it's always better to have some breathing room when it comes to power. I'd recommend perhaps 600-750W, that way if you did ever go with a beefy GPU, you wouldn't have to worry about replacing the PSU too. PSUs under 750W are quite cheap these days and when you consider the fact that if it goes down, your computer goes down, it's better to be safe than sorry. I personally don't run anything under 750W PSUs, no matter what kind of system I'm building, that way I have some overhead for any future additions I may need/want.

Oh, I believe the price difference on the K-series CPUs is like $10-20 more and you get an unlocked multiplier. The Ivy Bridge CPUs overclock like champs (5ghz+ isn't out of the question). You don't seem like the type who is going to want to go crazy with watercooling or overclocking, but even with the stock intel cooler, you could get 4.4ghz without any trouble (usually without much of a voltage increase, even). The way i run my systems is to leave the stock speed alone, but ramp up the turbo frequency so that I can get the extra performance when I need it. It allows you to use less power and be efficient, yet still kick it in the pants when you need the power (such as a big compiling job, or a video encode). I run my 2600K at 4.4ghz turbo speed with 0.1 additional volts (which is really nothing at all) and my temps are in the 45-60C range even when I'm slamming the CPU with work on all 8 cores. Without the unlocked multiplier, you're limited to overclocking by increasing bus speeds (to put it simply, this isn't an OC tutorial), which increase everything...including your external GPU, which leads to instability if you go more than a couple mhz) So that's something else you might want to consider. Since you're going with the Z67 board, you will have tons of overclocking settings at your fingertips...sometimes it's fun to play around with those.

A note on CPU cooling...
The company CoolIT makes a product called Eco that is a self-contained water-cooling system. It has the pump built on top of the copper CPU cooler and has hoses attached to the radiator, which doubles as a reservoir (which bolts onto the back of your case like a normal computer case fan). I've been using this system on my core i7 980x with turbo freq overclocked to 4.7ghz daily for over a year and temps have never seen the bad side of 65C, which is pretty impressive. At idle, it's sitting around 35-37C, which is very difficult to get on air cooling, even if you're NOT overclocking. It's super easy to set up (basically the same as an air cooler with fan) and it works flawlessly. The pump plugs into your CPU fan slot on your motherboard, so if anything goes wrong, the computer will recognize it and shut down your computer (as an additional failsafe, all modern motherboards shut down when the CPU hits 100C). I think it was $65 or so when I bought it, which is about the same as a high-grade air cooler. The cooler you keep your CPU, the longer it lasts, that's just a fact. Heat kills electronic parts. I believe that other manufacturers have also released similar designs, so you should have some choice. I've run full-blown water-cooling setups before (in addition to vapochill units...FUN FUN) and the CoolIT system is far and away the easiest and best cooling solution I've ever used. I will be using something similar on every desktop system I build from now on. Hmm, that sounded like a commercial. hehe

Last edited by baronmax (2012-05-05 13:16:19)

mr.MikyMaus · 2012-05-05 18:02:16

baronmax wrote:

Concerning the IGP (integrated graphics processor), the way Asus did it is they gave a special designation to the motherboard to denote whether IGP was on, off, or both. On the P-series, it's off. The H series is on. The Z series is both. So, for example, I have a P8P67, so I can't use my IGP, but even though I lose that, I gain additional settings for overclocking, memory tweaking and so forth (P = Performance). There was also a P8H67, which *only* used the IGP, but lacked the overclocking settings and was generally a less expensive board, primarily designed for something like home theater usage, for example. Then there's the P8Z67 which had a BIOS setting for IGP on or off, in addition to the overclocking and memory frequency settings (this wasn't around when I bought my P67, or I'd have gotten this, because it's more up my alley). I am not 100% certain, but I believe this is still the nomenclature Asus uses (P67, H67, Z67), although the model numbers may have changed, I believe the P, H and Z stay the same. Overall, the price difference isn't that great, so I'd definitely recommend the Z-series because you get the best of both worlds. It adds a bit of complexity, but I believe it's worth it.

you're probably talking about chipsets I think, there are Pxx, Hxx, Zxx Intel chipsets out there (and many other, like NH for atom platform, etc). You're right about the features though. Just one thing - the latest chipsets are x75 and x77, which should have full Ivy Bridge support and perhaps some other additional features. I'll definitely go for Z77 as it is, at least from what I was able to read out of the specs, the best one out there and there does not seem to be a justifiable price difference favoring P- or H- series, as you said.

baronmax wrote:

My girlfriend recently got an AMD with the built in IGP (although I think AMD calls it an APU, but whatever) and she really loves it. She plays World of Warcraft and she can play it on max settings now, which I don't think could be done with the intel IGP (certainly not on the 3000-series, but it may be possible on the 4000 models)....

I had my hands on some AMD Radeon graphics and so far nothing persuaded me that they're serious with Linux support. And even their windows drivers don't seem much stable to me. AMD is a no-no. I was hoping someone here could change my mind but it didn't happen so I'll stick with that opinion, until proven otherwise.

baronmax wrote:

Anyway, I think your selections should work well together. The one thing I would recommend is a larger power supply. I can't imagine you'd ever need a monster 1000W or anything like that, but it's always better to have some breathing room when it comes to power. I'd recommend perhaps 600-750W, that way if you did ever go with a beefy GPU....

About that, having some electrical engineering education, I happen to have some knowledge about power sources. What you say is true only partially. I agree that it's good to have some reserve but an impulse PSU running under say 30% of its designated performance makes it both ineffective and imprecise. By imprecise I mean that the power output is a bit "fuzzy" and unstable which is not good for board electronics, makes it die sooner. I did some basic research on power drain of those components and I believe that an average consumption would be less than 200W while in peaks it can get up to 300W. Ideal long-term consumption for both PSU and components is 50%-85% of PSU's performance where the PSU works optimally. I might go for a 500W source in the end, depending whether I go for overclocking or not

baronmax wrote:

Oh, I believe the price difference on the K-series CPUs is like $10-20 more and you get an unlocked multiplier. The Ivy Bridge CPUs overclock like champs (5ghz+ isn't out of the question). You don't seem like the type who is going to want to go crazy with watercooling or overclocking, but even with the stock intel cooler, you could get 4.4ghz without any trouble (usually without much of a voltage increase, even). The way i run my systems is to leave the stock speed alone, but ramp up the turbo frequency so that I can get the extra performance when I need it....

You're right, I'm not into this stuff much but it could definitely prove useful after a few years and it might make the box useful for a longer time. I'll think about it. I'm not sure how I'll deal with cooling yet but I'd like to have the box as quiet as possible - it's gonna be a sort of an HTPC after all. But it's not a priority now, this kind of stuff can be taken care of at any time. Thanks for the CoolIT tip, I'll definitely look into it

foutrelis · 2012-05-06 00:08:31

You seem to be well on your way to building a pretty neat system.

One note though: Don't get 2x2GB RAM modules, get 2x4GB. The extra 4GB of memory will surely come in handy, and you'll be able to upgrade to 16GB in the future if you want. With the prices currently being quite low, I'd grab 4x4GB right away.)

(I used to have 2x2GB, but a year later I just went ahead and replaced them with 4x4GB modules and have never regretted this decision!)

.:B:. · 2012-05-06 01:38:15

An i5 can do hardware-accelerated AES.

http://lwn.net/Articles/315467/

And for the record, I have a Sandy Bridge Celeron in my server here, I could disable the on-die GPU in the BIOS without a problem (there were no discrete graphics present).

Last edited by .:B:. (2012-05-06 01:40:48)

twelveeighty · 2012-05-07 18:25:30

zenlord wrote:

It should be easy to switch off the integrated GPU (or Intel would lose the whole 'serious gamers'-market).

I just checked with a brand-new Dell Latitude laptop... No option to switch off the integrated GPU. There is only an option to switch off the discrete card...So you either have Intel + nVidia/ATI, which is not (really) supported in Linux or you can only run the Intel card, in which case you wasted your money on the nVidia/ATI card. Plus you would have to settle for the performance of the Intel card, of course.

I think the real problem is that the Intel + nVidia combo is really only natively supported by Windows, and Dell doesn't give a you-know-what about Linux so they don't think a BIOS option is needed to turn off the integrated card....

zenlord · 2012-05-08 07:40:56

twelveeighty wrote:

zenlord wrote:
It should be easy to switch off the integrated GPU (or Intel would lose the whole 'serious gamers'-market).
I just checked with a brand-new Dell Latitude laptop... No option to switch off the integrated GPU.

You didn't quote the sentence before the one you quoted and replied to... And Baronmax also added to the discussion that some chipsets allow switching and others don't...

twelveeighty · 2012-05-08 16:06:52

zenlord wrote:

You didn't quote the sentence before the one you quoted and replied to... And Baronmax also added to the discussion that some chipsets allow switching and others don't...

For sure - I understand the point about the different chipsets, but my point is that I am not aware of *any newer* laptops today that allow the integrated card to be switched off, especially one from the "big brands" like Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo. If someone finds one, please chip in!

Arch Linux

#1 2012-05-03 21:45:50

new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#2 2012-05-04 04:10:09

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#3 2012-05-04 05:43:10

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#4 2012-05-04 22:51:04

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#5 2012-05-04 23:51:53

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#6 2012-05-05 01:39:05

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#7 2012-05-05 08:14:56

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#8 2012-05-05 11:58:15

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#9 2012-05-05 12:59:54

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#10 2012-05-05 18:02:16

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#11 2012-05-06 00:08:31

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#12 2012-05-06 01:38:15

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#13 2012-05-07 18:25:30

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#14 2012-05-08 07:40:56

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

#15 2012-05-08 16:06:52

Re: new computer: AMD or Intel + chipset

Board footer