Time for CPU upgrade - Going back to AMD

Personally I would have done the intel route, a route I already taken.
I actually have the intel i5 4460 and I am very impressed with it, it feels light years ahead of my older AMD Phenom II setup.
The fact that I can actually game on this without needing extra cards is a big bonus, sure I wont play any new AAA titles with my current setup but for onboard graphics I am very amazed on how capable the haswell refresh is.
Makes me real confident that if I put in a lower end graphics card it could still keep up with modern gaming needs... But hey AMD is still good and will go AMD for my graphics card
 
Personally I would have done the intel route, a route I already taken.
I actually have the intel i5 4460 and I am very impressed with it, it feels light years ahead of my older AMD Phenom II setup.
The fact that I can actually game on this without needing extra cards is a big bonus, sure I wont play any new AAA titles with my current setup but for onboard graphics I am very amazed on how capable the haswell refresh is.
Makes me real confident that if I put in a lower end graphics card it could still keep up with modern gaming needs... But hey AMD is still good and will go AMD for my graphics card
We already had that conversation about Intel.

I wouldn't go AMD for the GPU.
 
We already had that conversation about Intel.

I wouldn't go AMD for the GPU.

Well my consideration for AMD for GPU is that I use Linux, Windows is not my primary OS and NVIDIA makes HORRIBLE drivers for linux.
Its the open driver support that makes me go AMD at least for GPU's, NVIDIA has literately no real good open drivers for linux, nouveau is always having issues of some kind.
Now if this was a pure windows build I would say NVIDIA, but they loose as I am a linux user.
Linux comes first for me, I always check linux compliance when shopping hardware.
 
Have you tried their latest drivers for Linux, official from Nvidia? Any particular reason why you want the 3rd party driver?

No you misread me.
In linux things are not as static as they are in windows, it doesnt work how windows does in terms of how it handles things.
Part of what makes linux so good is its easy to modify its source code, build upon and improve so linux is very adaptable.
However proprietary drivers dont have such luxuries, you are at the mercy of developers for that driver maker and if it doesnt match your kernel then incompatibility will often occur.
Linux has the ability to adapt but it must have co operation from those who make hardware.
Its why the relationship between linux and intel in the last few years very good, intel has done a great job at keeping open GPU drivers ready for older cards.
So when the kernel is changed it can be ready.
Just behind intel is AMD, they have stepped up in supporting more legacy cards in the open drivers.
But NVIDIA?
They lack sourly behind, and if your card is no longer supported by the kernel or the drivers that is where open drivers are needed.
In windows you can see this sort of thing if you say jump a graphics card made for XP and try it in windows 7, thats because kernel development in windows is much slower than that of linux.
OSX also can have this issue if you try to upgrade certain machines to the newest version of that..
Linux doesnt have as many financial resources as Microsoft does,we are talking a billion dollar company vs a smaller base of developers.
The only thing truly bad in linux is hardware support, gaming we have ways to game using stuff like WINE but otherwise we are at the mercy of hardware developers.
The only good sign we have from NVIDIA is its entry into android and the rise of Steam machines, but otherwise their contribution to balanced drivers is abysmal.
Really when broadcom a company known for its rather fidgety compatibility with linux does better with open drivers you know you got issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom