Arch on AMD X2

jofa · 2006-10-27 00:59:49

My friend has just bought a new computer after several years gaming with Windows. Now I have shown him a few videos of Beryl & Co and he is willing to try out Linux.

I just installed Arch on my own computer that has a Pentium 4(HT) CPU, and I guess that's exactly the architecture Arch Linux is built for, right? Anyway, I'm very impressed with the preformance, smart packaging and ease to use.

So, now I wonder if I should help him install Arch on his new computer with an AMD X2(I think that's what it's called), or won't Arch work as smooth on his computer as it does on mine? I've seen there's Arch64, but I assume there are some differences and blocks that will prevent him from using NVidia drivers, Beryl etc. if he would install that. Otherwise, would it work to just install the basic Archx86 distribution on a 64-bit system?

johnisevil · 2006-10-27 02:57:15

jofa wrote:

My friend has just bought a new computer after several years gaming with Windows. Now I have shown him a few videos of Beryl & Co and he is willing to try out Linux.
I just installed Arch on my own computer that has a Pentium 4(HT) CPU, and I guess that's exactly the architecture Arch Linux is built for, right? Anyway, I'm very impressed with the preformance, smart packaging and ease to use.
So, now I wonder if I should help him install Arch on his new computer with an AMD X2(I think that's what it's called), or won't Arch work as smooth on his computer as it does on mine? I've seen there's Arch64, but I assume there are some differences and blocks that will prevent him from using NVidia drivers, Beryl etc. if he would install that. Otherwise, would it work to just install the basic Archx86 distribution on a 64-bit system?

I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work on your friend's system. I don't use the stock Arch kernel but I'm positive it has the necessary stuff for it to work. SMP being the main feature to utilize multiple cores/processors. As for Arch64, it's usable but there are a bunch of things he'll have to do without. That's the sacrifice of going 64bit. Personally, I'd just install the standard version of Arch. It's what powers my Athlon 64 X2 4600 (socket AM2) based system and works flawlessly.

jofa · 2006-10-27 10:12:12

Thank you! That last sentence was exactly was I wanted to hear I've sent him to download the FC6_64 (Zod), but now I can give him, IMHO a smoother alternative.

Master Beef · 2006-10-27 19:17:45

i've been using arch on my new amd 64 x2 system for a few weeks now and everything is fine. i haven't tried arch 64 yet as i havent had the time to go messing around with it.

Mr.Elendig · 2006-10-31 12:47:26

I've been using arch i686 on a X2 3800 for almost a year, and no (major) problems here. (just some cool'n'quiet/acpi wierdness, but that got fixed in 2.6.18)

lilsirecho · 2006-11-05 19:40:11

Has anyone tried Larch on the new AMD mobo?

Tatey · 2006-11-05 23:33:40

By new AMD motherboard, are you referring to the nForce5 series? If so, then yes. Arch runs beautifully on these chipsets.

lilsirecho · 2006-11-06 02:29:50

Subject seems to have been the amd 64 version operating with Larch.

ramjet · 2006-11-14 13:00:58

I am also thinking of arch on a 64 bit system (not dual core).
What sort of things am I likely to have to sacrifice?
Will there be codec support, propietry video drivers and is there anyway to get opera working on 64 bit?
Also, how was your friends experience with fedora 6 64, because im also thinking of going that way

chrismortimore · 2006-11-14 13:45:20

ramjet wrote:

I am also thinking of arch on a 64 bit system (not dual core).
What sort of things am I likely to have to sacrifice?
Will there be codec support, propietry video drivers and is there anyway to get opera working on 64 bit?
Also, how was your friends experience with fedora 6 64, because im also thinking of going that way

You'll sacrifice things like viewing WMV files (and anything else given by a win32codec). I don't think there is a 64 bit flash player plugin yet either (there wasn't when I last used 64 bit anyway). You won't have as much software available, as it is still being ported. You'll probably need to set up a 32 bit chroot to overcome a lot of problems.

Personally, I picked 32 bit, as I do full time uni 9am-5pm 5 days a week, and work 8:30am to 5pm weekends, and don't have time to tinker as much as I would like to. If you have the time, it's fun And it's nice to help the 64 bit community, something I plan to do when the semester finishes and I only have busy weekends.

Cynical · 2006-11-18 02:23:41

Actually you can view wmv files just fine in 64-bit distros now. Microsoft had to open up the spec for dvd manufacturers so the ffmpeg group took advantage of that. The latest version of mplayer (or any player that supports ffmpeg) supports wmv files natively. A little compiling is a small sacrifice to make I think.

There still is no 64-bit flash plugin (though there are ways around this limitation of course)

I'm going 64-bit just to increase its use, and help phase out 32-bit software

chrismortimore · 2006-11-18 20:19:00

Cynical wrote:

Actually you can view wmv files just fine in 64-bit distros now. Microsoft had to open up the spec for dvd manufacturers so the ffmpeg group took advantage of that. The latest version of mplayer (or any player that supports ffmpeg) supports wmv files natively. A little compiling is a small sacrifice to make I think.

Cool, didn't know that. Learn something new every day.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-27 00:59:49

Arch on AMD X2

#2 2006-10-27 02:57:15

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#3 2006-10-27 10:12:12

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#4 2006-10-27 19:17:45

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#5 2006-10-31 12:47:26

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#6 2006-11-05 19:40:11

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#7 2006-11-05 23:33:40

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#8 2006-11-06 02:29:50

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#9 2006-11-14 13:00:58

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#10 2006-11-14 13:45:20

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#11 2006-11-18 02:23:41

Re: Arch on AMD X2

#12 2006-11-18 20:19:00

Re: Arch on AMD X2

Board footer