# Best Motherboard/Processor for linux



## ENCOM OS-12

I want to build a Linux-only system but I'm wandering which processor (AMD or Intel) works best with linux. Then on that, which mobo brands works best with linux. What do you guys use with linux and how well does it work?


----------



## ENCOM OS-12

BUMP FOR ANSWERS, NOM.


----------



## djaburg

I've installed linux on both platforms (AMD and INTEL) and with a variety of motherboards and chipsets and virtually all have worked fine providing you have a relatively new linux distribution. What did you have in mind for hardware and distro?


----------



## ENCOM OS-12

Thanks for posting.

I was going for Intel + Gigabyte but intel mobos get very expensive for decent ones.

So I'm considering AMD. Not as fast but they work well for Linux (Ubuntu 11.10 )


----------



## hal8000

A "PC" by definition is one based on Intel hardware. You can get Intel clones i.e. AMD but
remember that the supporting chipset for AMD also differs from Intel and is sometimes the
VIA chipset.

Personally I am using Intel i5 Gigagbyte motherboard with P55A chipset (Intel) and an AMD graphics card. Although my AMD graphics card works well, graphics run smoother with Nvidia cards, but if you are limited to a budget, stick with what you can afford.

Before you buy your hardware heres a killer tip:-
Use google and search for problems, example suppose you are thinking of
buying and ati hd5770 card, search google with this string:
ati hd5770 linux problem

Currently it matches 1.4million results, not all necessarily bad.
There is a current problem with the ATI driver for HD5 series cards and that is
the mouse freezes in lower left corner. Hopefully ATI will fix this glitch next driver
update.


----------



## rAllcorn

Having been in computers back since CP/M 2.2 was the defacto OS, I have to disagree with your statement below, respectfully. 

A "PC" by definition is NOT just one based on Intel hardware. A common misunderstanding exists among newer users in the computer industry, orchestrated intentionally by Microsoft with their release of MS-DOS (then called "PC-DOS") on IBM's first personal computer. The marketing scheme was a concoction between Microsoft and IBM, to market the new device in hopes that the terminology would help unlearned users better understand the hardware and software. All it really did, though, was confuse them ... even to this day! 

The term "PC" stands for "Personal Computer", and the processor can be based on just about any type of architecture. IBM stole the commonly used term "PC" when they marketed their Intel-based PC, naming it the "PC". They also named their DOS "DOS". Rather ludicrous when you think about it. Their effort to make things simpler to understand only brought about confusion amongst the less literate users in the industry. And still today, when you talk to someone not so computer literate, a "PC" stands for the "IBM PC" or an "IBM-compatible computer". But "PC" still stands for "personal computer" and "DOS" still stands for "disc-based operating system", and not MS-DOS (or PC-DOS). So I have to disagree with the statement below ... "A PC by definition is one based on Intel..." when it is not.


----------



## dereklai

I bought 4 PCs for my company to run Ubuntu 12.04. I bought 2 Intel i5 and AMD machines. I found that for the same amount of money, you can fit more memory in the AMD systems (16GB) vs only 8 GB for the Intel i5 systems. And the AMD systems seems more stable.


Derek


----------



## djaburg

You'll find that for "most" users, they would not see a difference running the types of apps that most users run. Hardware can be like politics, people have their opinions and they can be hard to change. If these computers are for general use, then either platform will do just fine.


----------



## purplewelshy

As an aside for the person who said PC by definition is an Intel one. PC means personal computer. What he is talking about was called an IBM PC and came out using an Intel atom processor, later called an 8088. 68000 based PC's were far superior without the memory addressing problems of the Intel design but you don't argue with the likes of big blue or big bill. Not if you want to survive in this world of choice sic.


----------



## alpenadiver

The current downfall / obstacle with new motherboards is the UEFI Bios, and there are work arounds. When it comes to running Linux. I've been running Linux (many different distros) since 2000, back then there was a lot of user configuration to get Linux to work, not the case anymore, with the exception of the fore mentioned BIOS.

Today it is very much like a typical Windows install, I'm currently running fedora 17, on a HP DV9700CTO laptop, with a AMD-Turion / 64 processor with nVidia GPU. For myself I don't dual boot from a single Hard Drive, it's a been there, done that kind of thing. Each OS is on a separate hard drive, for me I feel like I have more control.


----------



## Fjandr

The OP posted this nearly two years ago.


----------



## hal8000

Fjandr said:


> The OP posted this nearly two years ago.


Yes, good point I'll close this thread now.


----------

