Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    160

    Quote Originally Posted by jecxjo View Post
    If you're buying a "new" laptop chances are you'll not have an "old" GPU.

    There are two (three if you include the closed source drivers from AMD) options youll have: radeon drivers for pre-GCN 1.2 hardware and amdgpu for GCN 1.2 hardware. The radeon drivers cover pretty much everything the old closed source drivers covered. For newer stuff you have open and closed source options.

    Here is a good starting list from Gentoo. Since its a mix between kernel drivers and Xorg drivers, this issue is distro agnostic.

    So I cant post urls so check out this xorg wiki entry: /wiki/RadeonFeature/

    And gentoo wiki entries:

    /wiki/Radeon
    /wiki/AMDGPU

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
    Thank you very much!

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by drl View Post
    Hi.

    I have an AMD box from ZaReason, a workstation:
    Code:
    $ inxi -c0 -F
    System:    Host: leap Kernel: 3.16.0-4-amd64 x86_64 (64 bit)
               Desktop: KDE Plasma 4.14.2 Distro: Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)
    Machine:   System: innotek (portable) product: VirtualBox v: 1.2
               Mobo: Oracle model: VirtualBox v: 1.2
               Bios: innotek v: VirtualBox date: 12/01/2006
    CPU:       Quad core AMD FX-6350 Six-Core (-MCP-) cache: 8192 KB 
               clock speeds: max: 3900 MHz 1: 3900 MHz 2: 3900 MHz 3: 3900 MHz
               4: 3900 MHz
    ( ... )
    I decided on this because:
    1. it's powerful enough for my intended use,
    2. the corresponding Intel CPU was not yet supported by Debian
    3. the performance/price was significantly higher than Intel

    For the latter, see https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php...-6350+Six-Core

    This hardware/software combination is very stable, reliable. The longest I allowed it to be running was:
    Code:
    up 135 days  36 users: Debian 8.7 (jessie)
    although if I were to be be better with applying updates, that probably would be fewer number of days. It has frozen once since I have had it (for unknown reasons). It generally is on-powered 24/7.

    This configuration is discussed in more detail at http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/har...rkstation.html , including use of LVM and as a virtual machine.

    I have 4 cores assigned to this guest VM, allowing 2 for the host.

    Good luck ... cheers, drl
    When you say that the price/performance was better with AMD, I'm not sure what you mean. The trouble with comparing processors of different architectures or even just different generations is that the number of Instructions Per Clock (IPC) varies and the vendors don't tell you that particular bit of information. They also don't tell you the speed of the processor in FLOPS, which is another way to compare processors of different architectures and generations.

    How did you compare the AMD and Intel CPUs? Did you go by GHz or FLOPS? Did you check benchmarks?

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by allin View Post
    Thank you. Just one question, do you know why all the notebook vendors that provide native-Linux notebooks use Intel? E.g. System76, Purism, ...
    I think the reason is that most people qho choose to run linux, are more advanced users and/or ones with a specific use case or need. So most Linux users will want to install it themselves.

    There are also hundreds of flavors of Linux. Since most mass-producers of Notebooks don't do individual installations, that could take an hour or more each. They instead complete an installation including drivers, on one storage media, per unique laptop, and then clone that drive before installing it in the laptop. So it becomes impossible to mass produce installations in this way. Windows on the other hand, only has a few versions (and even then, big producers like Dell only let a user choose from a few options of Windows too.)

    Add to that, that, unlike Windows, there 4 mainstream desktop environments available for most Distributions, there are uncountable numbers of text editors, paint-like drawing applications, photo viewers and editors, etc... Even drivers are often available in multiple options.

    So it just is plain impractical to offer Linux as an option for mass producers of notebooks.

    As for why there are a few that do offer Linux? In this case, Linux is usually a single option from a Distribution that offers support and is technically "non-free" (Like RHEL). It may also be offered in a free version as a way to provide an OS at no charge, for people that plan to do their own OS install. In this way they can still tie warranty clauses to OS modification like many do with Windows, but not limit people to Windows.

    Mass producers choose Intel for the Same reasons they choose windows. They get discounts for buying parts in bulk. They get discounts for exclusivity. Historically, Intel has offered higher-end mobile CPUs and more chipsets with integrated graphics.

    They likely don't get kickbacks for choosing Intel, but they probably get better prices for buying more. Most customers prefer Intel (whether they are making the right decision is a matter of opinion) so by buying AMD parts, they end up paying much more for the AMD and losing quantity discounts from Intel.

    Also, don't forget that When you're offering both the Hardware and the OS as options, driver installations become that much more complex.

    Also, a lot of people want to dual boot with linux, so it makes sense to provide one of the OSs.

    In the end it comes down to too many options for customization.

    Smaller producers can afford to offer more customized products including the chipset and the OS.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    443
    -->
    Quote Originally Posted by dbennett View Post
    I think the reason is that most people qho choose to run linux, are more advanced users and/or ones with a specific use case or need. So most Linux users will want to install it themselves.

    There are also hundreds of flavors of Linux. Since most mass-producers of Notebooks don't do individual installations, that could take an hour or more each. They instead complete an installation including drivers, on one storage media, per unique laptop, and then clone that drive before installing it in the laptop. So it becomes impossible to mass produce installations in this way. Windows on the other hand, only has a few versions (and even then, big producers like Dell only let a user choose from a few options of Windows too.)

    Add to that, that, unlike Windows, there 4 mainstream desktop environments available for most Distributions, there are uncountable numbers of text editors, paint-like drawing applications, photo viewers and editors, etc... Even drivers are often available in multiple options.

    So it just is plain impractical to offer Linux as an option for mass producers of notebooks.

    As for why there are a few that do offer Linux? In this case, Linux is usually a single option from a Distribution that offers support and is technically "non-free" (Like RHEL). It may also be offered in a free version as a way to provide an OS at no charge, for people that plan to do their own OS install. In this way they can still tie warranty clauses to OS modification like many do with Windows, but not limit people to Windows.

    Mass producers choose Intel for the Same reasons they choose windows. They get discounts for buying parts in bulk. They get discounts for exclusivity. Historically, Intel has offered higher-end mobile CPUs and more chipsets with integrated graphics.

    They likely don't get kickbacks for choosing Intel, but they probably get better prices for buying more. Most customers prefer Intel (whether they are making the right decision is a matter of opinion) so by buying AMD parts, they end up paying much more for the AMD and losing quantity discounts from Intel.

    Also, don't forget that When you're offering both the Hardware and the OS as options, driver installations become that much more complex.

    Also, a lot of people want to dual boot with linux, so it makes sense to provide one of the OSs.

    In the end it comes down to too many options for customization.

    Smaller producers can afford to offer more customized products including the chipset and the OS.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    wow what a great post! have any others about why water is wet? i'm sure there are other 2+yr old posts that need your fabulous insight.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •