AMD or Nvidia Chipsets

PhilGQ · 27 Nov 2009 at 19:49

I am thinking of upgrading my motherboard and CPU. I am after an AM2+ board so I can keep my DDR2 Ram.

I am currently on an Nvidia board of some years old, but all the AM2+ Nvidia boards seem a bit dated or expensive. My question is are the AMD Chipsets Linux friendly or should I stick with Nvidia.

I know on the graphics side Nvidia is better then AMD/ATI, buts thats not a problem since I will be keeping by GF8600. I don't anticipate that Compiz will need SLI any time soon so that is not an issue.

I have been eyeing this

http://http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-199-GI&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1482

Your thoughts and comments would be very welcome.

BigglesPiP · 27 Nov 2009 at 19:56

I've often needed to use some extra boot parameters to get nVidia chipsets working, I'd go with AMD.

FirebarUK · 27 Nov 2009 at 20:24

Avoid nVidia chipsets full stop. Pants tbh since Nforce 2.

dangerstat · 27 Nov 2009 at 20:28

I'm the opposite of the above. I tend to have no issues with NV chipsets (across most Linux platforms). I have had problems with ATI chipsets. Hence I'd urge you towards NV chipsets.

pingwing · 27 Nov 2009 at 20:40

So long as your not using ati's graphics then eithers fine really. Used to run nf4 stuff on linux with no problems and my olf ati based board (rdx200 i think)

PermaBanned · 27 Nov 2009 at 20:58

Meh, most of their cards now have good enough Linux drivers. Miles better than what they offered previously.

FirebarUK · 27 Nov 2009 at 22:40

You can expect the AMD 7XX chipsets to be pretty rock solid in Linux. Integrated graphics aside. This is more than you can say for nVidia chipsets tbh and the same applies for Windows. I've used way too many nVidia chipset boards to ever go back to them.

NightSt@lk3r · 28 Nov 2009 at 12:30

Both are pants under Linux, Intel chipsets are the only ones that have ever worked flawlessly for me on Linux

PhilGQ · 28 Nov 2009 at 13:56

Thanks guys, that is great help will probably go for the board I linked to above.

@ NightSt@lker

I have heard intel hardware support is good, they do open source drivers and the like, if I was building from scratch I would go for an i5 rig. Since I have 6GB of DDR2 in the current system the choice is between AthlonII/PhenomII on am2+ or Core2 Due/Quad on 775. I am looking at spending £150-£180 and I think I would get better band per buck on AMD.

BigglesPiP · 28 Nov 2009 at 20:44

NightSt@lk3r said:
Both are pants under Linux, Intel chipsets are the only ones that have ever worked flawlessly for me on Linux

This TBH, since it looks like you're buying new parts, the best combination for Linux is Intel chip, intel chipset, and nVidia graphic card.

PhilGQ · 29 Nov 2009 at 10:13

If I where to go Intel it probably have to be:

Foxconn ELA Intel P45 (Socket 775)
Core 2 Quad 8200

Which is £178.98

If I go AMD it would be:

Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD3P AMD 790X (Socket AM3/AM2+)
AMD Athlon II X4 Quad Core 630 2.80GHz (Socket AM3)

Which is £183.97

Now I am not sure which I should go for

craptakular · 29 Nov 2009 at 10:15

BigglesPiP said:
This TBH, since it looks like you're buying new parts, the best combination for Linux is Intel chip, intel chipset, and nVidia graphic card.

+1

I was going to run mythtv on my new htpc, I bought hardware based on win7 though!!!

I bough an nvidia chipset AMD board and it is impossible to get spdif working, hence I cannot use linux on it and it stays on win7.

gurusan · 29 Nov 2009 at 10:22

FirebarUK said:
Avoid nVidia chipsets full stop. Pants tbh since Nforce 2.

NF4 was awesome for 939!!!!

FirebarUK · 29 Nov 2009 at 10:26

The AMD 790X (and appropriate southbridge) is well supported in Linux.

NF4 was awesome for 939!!!!

Under Linux is wasn't too great. It also came no-where near the NForce 2 for pure awesomeness

PhilGQ · 29 Nov 2009 at 10:39

FirebarUK said:
The AMD 790X (and appropriate southbridge) is well supported in Linux.

Thats good to hear, I have been looking at some comparisons of Athlon II X4 compare with Q8200 and the Intel doesn't seem to do so well.

gurusan · 29 Nov 2009 at 10:53

just realized this was posted in the linux section :/

dangerstat · 29 Nov 2009 at 11:52

PhilGQ said:
Thats good to hear, I have been looking at some comparisons of Athlon II X4 compare with Q8200 and the Intel doesn't seem to do so well.

The Q8200 is the worst Intel quad, and so I hear it can't clock very well (although I've heard others claiming different - the experiences of all those I know with one are terrible on the clocking front).

gurusan · 29 Nov 2009 at 12:07

The problem with the Q8200 is that it has a very low multi....so even if you manage to get 500FSB out of it that's still only 3.5GHz.