hardwaretimes.com
If I had my own choice of computer, I probably wouldn't choose an FX, but this computer was a bit of a surprise for me. I want to try KDE. It's excellent in terms of customization. What do you think about KDE?.....and an FX-8350. Hm. Trouble is, all these Bulldozer-family (Piledriver/Excavator/Steamroller) chips hail from the AMD "wilderness" years, when nobody was firmly in charge at AMD and some God-awful design choices were made. And because of the weird way that AMD had split those 8 cores up into 4 "dual-core" modules while at the same time STILL sharing resources and scheduling, Windows of the time couldn't make head or tail of how to allocate threads!
It SAW 8 independent cores.....but AMD's peculiar design arranged this more like a pair of woefully inept quad-cores side by side. Windows didn't know what to do with it.....and despite the octa-core design, performance was notably lack-lustre at best.
Nah; they weren't AMD's finest moment. Nothing ran that well on them due to the peculiar resource handling; AMD were aiming for high frequencies......and we all remember the debacle of Intel's "Prescott" Pentium 4, don't we? The FXs just ended up going round & round in circles at a far higher speed than usual..!
Enthusiasts saw an "8-core CPU", and went "Yee-haw! This is gonna be good....", and instead ended-up being somewhat bemused and often quite disappointed. This makes for some interesting reading:-
Tracing AMD's Journey to Zen: From FX to Ryzen; Differences Between the Two | Hardware Times
Before the Zen-based Ryzen CPUs landed in 2017, AMD was in a very precarious situation, nearly on the verge of bankruptcy. The older “Bulldozer” FX CPUs were slow, inefficient, and overall an architectural disaster. In fact, Ryzen wouldn’t have had the impact it did if not for Bulldozer. Let’s...
Rather you than me, my friend. You couldn't PAY me to use one of those things.....and this from someone who generally prefers AMD to Intel, when given the choice. Zen was as well-received as it was because it was such a stark contrast to the awful Bulldozer; frankly, at the time anything would have been seen as an improvement.
Mike.
You seem to know what you're talking about. I'm undecided between Fedora and Ubuntu. And if I were to install either, I'm also torn between GNOME and KDE. Please help me......and an FX-8350. Hm. Trouble is, all these Bulldozer-family (Piledriver/Excavator/Steamroller) chips hail from the AMD "wilderness" years, when nobody was firmly in charge at AMD and some God-awful design choices were made. And because of the weird way that AMD had split those 8 cores up into 4 "dual-core" modules while at the same time STILL sharing resources and scheduling, Windows of the time couldn't make head or tail of how to allocate threads!
It SAW 8 independent cores.....but AMD's peculiar design arranged this more like a pair of woefully inept quad-cores side by side. Windows didn't know what to do with it.....and despite the octa-core design, performance was notably lack-lustre at best.
Nah; they weren't AMD's finest moment. Nothing ran that well on them due to the peculiar resource handling; AMD were aiming for high frequencies......and we all remember the debacle of Intel's "Prescott" Pentium 4, don't we? The FXs just ended up going round & round in circles at a far higher speed than usual..!
Enthusiasts saw an "8-core CPU", and went "Yee-haw! This is gonna be good....", and instead ended-up being somewhat bemused and often quite disappointed. This makes for some interesting reading:-
Tracing AMD's Journey to Zen: From FX to Ryzen; Differences Between the Two | Hardware Times
Before the Zen-based Ryzen CPUs landed in 2017, AMD was in a very precarious situation, nearly on the verge of bankruptcy. The older “Bulldozer” FX CPUs were slow, inefficient, and overall an architectural disaster. In fact, Ryzen wouldn’t have had the impact it did if not for Bulldozer. Let’s...
Rather you than me, my friend. You couldn't PAY me to use one of those things.....and this from someone who generally prefers AMD to Intel, when given the choice. Zen was as well-received as it was because it was such a stark contrast to the awful Bulldozer; frankly, at the time anything would have been seen as an improvement.
Mike.
I have been using KDE for a long time and suggest you give it a try. It has improved over the years and it much faster than gnome most of the time. I would start with kde 5.27 for now KDE 6 is too new still has a few bugs to work out, though it's getting there. If you stick with Fedora you will get KDE 6. So you may want to give MX-23, Debian or Kubuntu a spin. Good luck whatever you choose in Linux we have choices.
I'm using Gnome on my new desktop system and my 9 year old laptop, I barely notice a difference. So unless your are running ancient hardware or a crappy gpu Gnome should be fine in most cases. Also a classic desktop environment if you are wanting something different than Windows, I find that one of the good things about Gnome that it offers a unique experience to Windows when it comes to how you use your desktop but even if you don't want that you can still get a classic experience with extensions. The only downside of extensions is that they need to be updated every new major Gnome release so I don't use that many.
Which distro are you using?
Silverblue on my laptop on NixOS on my desktop. Sometimes I do notice a bit but then it's only a short hiccup and can't complain about it with an old laptop. My laptop has a dual-core cpu with intel graphics, OP's cpu is better than my laptop's cpu and has a better gpu then my laptop so wouldn't see a reason why Gnome would be a problem.
