Does this system work optimal on Ubuntu?

[Wouter van Vliet]

On 16 September 2010 20:30, Ric Moore <wayward4now at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 20:10 +0300, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:41:38PM +0200, Wouter van Vliet wrote:
> > > I'm looking into buying a new computer, and as much as I know about
> certain
> > > aspects of the whole computing world, I haven't really been keeping
> myself
> > > updated on which hardware is good and in particular what works good
> together
> > > with Ubuntu.
> > >
> > > What I've put together is the following:
> > >
> > > CPU:AMD Athlon II X2 250 3.0GHz AM3Mainboard:ASUS M4A785T-M DDR3 AM3
> S-940
> > > RAM:4GB DDR3 1333MHz CL9 Geil (2x2GB)Grafikkort:1024MB ASUS GeF GT220 G
> DI
> >
> > NVidia is not a good choice for an Ubuntu system.  You're either using
> > the closed-source driver (assuming it works) and suffering from random
> > bugs/crashes, or you're using reverse-engineered open-source drivers
> > (assuming they work) and suffering from random bugs/crashes _and_ poor
> > performance.
> >
> > AMD/ATI is somewhat better in that they're publishing the hardware specs
> > and developing open drivers, but if you get their latest cards, expect
> > the open drivers to be unavailable yet.
> >
> > Intel is the best bet (if you avoid the rare closed chipset like the
> > Poulsbo) for optimal compatibility, but their video hardware isn't as
> > powerful.  It's perfectly sufficient for fast desktop effects, though.
>
> I've never heard such reports from the gamer crowd. nVidia has the
> longest running track record of actually working, for many years. For
> me, nVidia has been the only choice for heavy industrial 3D
> acceleration. Intel has been on the lowest rung for 3D performance, for
> a long time, with ATI somewhere in between. Ric
>

I feel like I can't thank you guys enough, and I'm glad I asked. I myself am
tempted to stay away from at least Intel video cards, due bad to experience
with it on my Toshiba Satellite with a Mobile Intel® 943GML Express. I've
seen performance getting better of it with every new release of Ubuntu, but
I still don't feel it works as it should.

But now I'm torn again, with mixed reports about both nVidia and Intel.

As for my usage, I'm not a gamer so I probably won't be needing all of the
power of the video card. As a matter of fact, I'm a website developer - so
the main thing for me is that the system is stable, very stable, that I can
play in-browser video (yes, flash as well) without overheating my video card
and can enjoy the Ubuntu's graphical effects to some degree. And of course
it should run vi - but I don't think I could find a system which would have
a problem with that.

Another thing is that it'd be nice to be able to run a windows system inside
VirtualBox mainly to test for IE bugs in websites. Should I need to do some
development in Adobe Flash - I can live with making it a dual boot.

Instead of the GeF GT220, I could imagine going for this one: 1024MB XFX ATI
HD4550 DDR2 Silent PCI-E, if I can conclude that ATI can actually perform
better and more stable on Ubuntu.

But can I?

So, update on how the system could currently look:

CPU: Intel Core i5-650 3.20GHz 4MB S-1156
Mainboard: ASUS P7H55-M/SI DDR3 mATX S-1156
RAM: 4GB DDR3 1333MHz CL9 Geil (2x2GB)

Grafikkort Option X: 1024MB XFX ATI HD5670 775M DDR5 PCI-E
Grafikkort Option Q: 1024MB ASUS GeF GT220 G DI DDR2 PCI-E-296

Harddisk: 500GB Western Digital 7200rpm 16MB SATA2
Harddisk SSD: 40GB Intel X25-V SSD SATA 2.5 Retail
Kabinet: Cooler Master Elite 310 Orange/Sort u/PSU
Strømforsyning: 650W Energon EPS-650 120mm
CPU Køler: Standard Intel Køler
DVD Brænder: 22x Samsung DVD/RW DL Sort SATA
Netkort Trådløst: Linksys Wireless 300Mbps PCI
Kortlæser: All-in-1 Intern kortlæser sort
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20100917/0c39b51f/attachment.html>